U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

22–426 PDF 2006

S. HRG. 109–260 

PROGRESS OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE CAPITOL 

VISITOR CENTER, 2005 

HEARINGS 

BEFORE A

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

SPECIAL HEARINGS 

MAY 17, 2005—WASHINGTON, DC 

JUNE 14, 2005—WASHINGTON, DC 

JULY 14, 2005—WASHINGTON, DC 

SEPTEMBER 15, 2005—WASHINGTON, DC 

OCTOBER 18, 2005—WASHINGTON, DC 

NOVEMBER 16, 2005—WASHINGTON, DC 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi, Chairman 

TED STEVENS, Alaska 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania 

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico 

CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri 

MITCH MCCONNELL, Kentucky 

CONRAD BURNS, Montana 

RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama 

JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire 

ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah 

LARRY CRAIG, Idaho 

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas 

MIKE DEWINE, Ohio 

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas 

WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado 

ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia 

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont 

TOM HARKIN, Iowa 

BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland 

HARRY REID, Nevada 

HERB KOHL, Wisconsin 

PATTY MURRAY, Washington 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

J. KEITH KENNEDY, Staff Director 

TERRENCE E. SAUVAIN, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH

WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado, Chairman 

THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi 

MIKE DEWINE, Ohio 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia 

(ex officio) 

Professional Staff 

CAROLYN E. APOSTOLOU

TERRENCE E. SAUVAIN (Minority) 

DREW WILLISON (Minority) 

NANCY OLKEWICZ (Minority) 

Administrative Support 

CHRISTEN TAYLOR
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

TUESDAY, MAY 17, 2005 

Page 

Architect of the Capitol ........................................................................................... 1 

Government Accountability Office .......................................................................... 9 

TUESDAY, JUNE 14, 2005 

Architect of the Capitol ........................................................................................... 35 

Government Accountability Office .......................................................................... 39 

THURSDAY, JULY 14, 2005 

Government Accountability Office .......................................................................... 63 

Architect of the Capitol ........................................................................................... 75 

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 15, 2005 

Architect of the Capitol ........................................................................................... 90 

Government Accountability Office .......................................................................... 96 

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 18, 2005 

Architect of the Capitol ........................................................................................... 124 

Government Accountability Office .......................................................................... 129 

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 2005 

Architect of the Capitol ........................................................................................... 152 

Government Accountability Office .......................................................................... 159 

(1) 

PROGRESS OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE 

CAPITOL VISITOR CENTER 

TUESDAY, MAY 17, 2005 

U.S. SENATE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH, 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met at 10:30 a.m., in room SD–138, Dirksen 

Senate Office Building. Hon. Wayne Allard (chairman) presiding. 

Present: Senators Allard, Cochran, and Durbin. 

STATEMENT OF ALAN M. HANTMAN, FAIA, ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL 

ACCOMPANIED BY BOB HIXON, PROJECT DIRECTOR, CAPITOL VISITOR CENTER, ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR WAYNE ALLARD

Senator ALLARD. The subcommittee will come to order. We meet 

today to take testimony from the Architect of the Capitol, Alan 

Hantman, and the Comptroller General, David Walker, on the 

progress of the Capitol Visitor Center (CVC). 

Accompanying Mr. Hantman is the CVC Project Director Bob 

Hixon. Mr. Walker is joined by Terrell Dorn of GAO. 

As chairman of the Legislative Branch Subcommittee, I intend to 

monitor progress of this critical project closely, to ensure the Architect is doing all in his power to finish this project in a timely and 

cost effective fashion. 

While the AOC met a major milestone in ensuring the east front 

plaza was in sufficient condition to accommodate the requirements 

of the 2005 inaugural, we are a long way from completion of this 

project. It is at least 20 months behind the original schedule and 

many dollars over the 2002 budget, which included new security requirements and expansion of House and Senate space. The budget 

and schedule for this 580,000 square foot underground facility have 

been concerns for at least 3 years. Today’s hearing will focus on 

getting further clarification on the budget and schedule. 

There are many other CVC-related issues, particularly those associated with the operation of the visitor center. But we will save 

those for another day. We have asked the Comptroller General to 

testify today since the Government Accountability Office has been 

monitoring the project closely from the start. 

We will first hear the Architect’s opening statement followed by 

Mr. Walker’s and then we’ll have 5-minute rounds of questions. I 

have been informed that the minority member, Senator Richard 
2 

Durbin, will be here a little bit later this morning and when he arrives, we’ll give him an opportunity to do an opening statement if 

he’d like, and then I’d call on the chairman of the full committee 

to see if he has any statements that he’d like to make. 

Senator COCHRAN. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the convening of 

the hearing and for your leadership as chairman of this subcommittee. We think it is very important for us to understand fully 

what the needs are and what our interests are in connection with 

the expansion of the Capitol and the improvements that are being 

made for our capabilities for screening and other security measures 

that will help protect the Capitol, and also enhance the opportunities of visitors to the Capitol to enjoy and appreciate the U.S. Capitol. 

So, it’s a big undertaking. We know it’s not easy to address all 

of these issues in a hearing of this kind. But, over the last several 

months I think the subcommittee has shown a willingness to get 

involved in an understanding of the challenges so that we can better respond to the needs that we have for an orderly and thoughtful support effort by the Congress for the work that’s being done 

to try to help improve the lines of communication between the Architect’s office and others who are involved in this project. And I 

think great progress on this plan, Mr. Chairman, is being made, 

and much of that is due to your leadership and I appreciate that 

and I want to commend you for it. 

We also recognize the fact that others are working hard, conscientiously in connection with this project to discharge their responsibilities and I think we need to recognize that and express our 

appreciation to the Architect and all of those who have been involved in this project over the last several years. 

Senator ALLARD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate 

your personal interest in coming to these meetings. We very much 

appreciate your support. 

Mr. Hantman, we’ll go ahead and ask you to begin your testimony. Welcome to the subcommittee, along with Mr. Hixon. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF THE ARCHITECT

Mr. HANTMAN. Thank you. 

Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Senator Cochran. Thank you for 

this opportunity to testify today, and to report to you on the 

progress made on the CVC project since we last met on April 13. 

While a little more than 4 weeks have passed, we have indeed 

achieved some significant goals that we discussed with you last 

month. Mr. Chairman, you pointed out, and we all acknowledged 

that the most important of these goals was the need for a fully integrated project schedule. One that encompassed not only construction, but the myriad ancillary activities necessary to open the Capitol Visitor Center to the public. While we had a construction 

schedule and a master schedule, the two were not fully integrated. 

I am pleased to report that we now have that fully integrated 

schedule in hand, which gives us the tool necessary to monitor 

more closely and accurately the progress of our contractors. I 

should note that with more than 4,000 scheduled activities remaining, refinements to the schedule will continue to occur as we move 

forward. 
3 

But certainly we are in a better position than ever before to track 

construction activities, identify issues and perhaps most importantly, recognize the relationship between activities. Seeing the 

fully integrated picture will help us minimize the ripple effect that 

can occur when a problem of delay in one area affects several other 

areas or activities. I look forward to discussing this with you in 

some detail at this hearing. 

We also spoke last month, Mr. Chairman, about the need to 

award the contract to construct the exhibition galleries phase, a 

key component of the visitor experience in the CVC. Again, I am 

pleased to report that since our last meeting, we received the necessary approvals to award the contract, and that award occurred 

on May 4. We’re now evaluating the exhibition gallery construction 

schedule to ensure that delay in the award does not affect our ability to complete this space in September 2006, to coincide with the 

completion of other visitor-related activities. 

And finally, as you know, the President signed a supplemental 

appropriations budget last Thursday. Therefore, just yesterday, Mr. 

Chairman, we awarded the contract for the build out of the House 

and Senate expansion space, a very significant milestone. 

As we discussed in April, while work on the expansion space will 

extend beyond the completion of the visitor center facilities by several months, we do not, at this time, expect it to delay our abilities 

to open the doors of the visitor center to the public. 

Now, Mr. Chairman, while you visited the project site with me 

just last month, much additional progress has been made, which I 

would like to detail for you at this time, if I may. As I discuss specific areas, I have four photo boards which will help you see the 

progress we have made in several areas. 

First, let me say that our sequence 2 contractor, Manhattan Construction, continues its operations in all areas of the project site. 

We have completed fireproofing on all three levels of the CVC including the Congressional Auditorium. We are now working on remaining fireproofing work on the east front extension inside the 

Capitol building itself, while contractors continue to install duct 

work and piping for all heating, cooling, supply and waste water, 

and fire protection. Concrete masonry block walls continue to rise 

to define interior spaces. In the exhibition gallery, for example, 

block walls now define the virtual House and Senate theaters. And 

here on this rendering, Mr. Chairman—this is the South Orientation Theater—it’s now almost entirely enclosed as the block work 

for the screen wall up here is done, the columns are in place; you 

can see a worker up over here finishing that up. We are now getting it completely detailed and laid out, so that we can begin stone 

installation in this area. 

The bottom rendering essentially is just that—it’s a rendering of 

what this space will look like once it is completed and you can see 

the form and the shape of the space is taking shape very nicely. 

On the next board it shows the Great Hall and the majestic view 

of the Capitol Dome in the rendering over here through one of the 

skylights. You can see some of the block work columns are already 

in place. This, in fact, is the view through the skylight, the fastening elements, the support elements are being installed around 

the fascia of the skylight, and you can see again the space is taking 
4 

shape. It’s going to turn out to be very much as we show in the 

rendering over here and we’re moving along well on that. 

Now, outside at the CVC entrance area, stone crews are beginning to install exterior wall stones at the retaining wall along the 

pedestrian ramp leading down from the Senate side here. And as 

you can see on this board, the view from the rendering is very 

much like what essentially is being built right now. So the reality 

of the physical form is taking shape and people can begin to appreciate the physical finality of the project as we continue to move 

ahead. 

And finally, on this last board it shows a broader view of the east 

front plaza. Our deck, as you can see, is entirely in place, the crews 

continue to set some of the 200,000 granite pavers that will cover 

the plaza, the entrance zones in the foreground are near their final 

graded elevations and we continue to move ahead. And here is the 

rendering essentially from that same angle of what this will look 

like as we complete the work. 

Once again, I thank you for this opportunity to report to you on 

the CVC project. I do thank you also for your active involvement 

on this subcommittee. It clearly has helped move the project forward just over the last month in fact. I’d be happy to answer any 

questions you might have at this time. 

Senator ALLARD. Thank you Mr. Hantman. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ALAN M. HANTMAN, FAIA 

Mr. Chairman, Senator Durbin, members of the Committee, thank you for this opportunity to testify today and to report to you on the progress made on the Capitol 

Visitor Center project since we last met on April 13. 

While little more than four weeks have passed, we have, indeed, achieved some 

significant goals that we discussed with you last month. Mr. Chairman, you pointed 

out, and we all acknowledged, that the most important of these goals was the need 

for a fully integrated project schedule—one that encompassed not only construction, 

but the myriad ancillary activities necessary to open the Capitol Visitor Center to 

the public. While we always had a construction schedule and a master schedule, the 

two were not fully integrated. I am pleased to report that we now have that fullyintegrated schedule in hand, which gives us the tool necessary to monitor more 

closely and accurately the progress of our contractors. I should note that with more 

than 4,000 scheduled activities remaining, refinements to the schedule will continue 

to occur as we move forward, but certainly, we are in better position than ever before to track construction activities, identify issues and perhaps most importantly, 

recognize the relationship between activities. Seeing the big—and fully-integrated— 

picture will help us minimize the ripple effect that can occur when a problem or 

delay in one area affects several other areas or activities. 

We also spoke last month, Mr. Chairman, about the need to award the contract 

to construct the Exhibition Gallery space, a key component of the visitor experience 

in the CVC. Again, I am pleased to report that since our last meeting, we have received the necessary approvals to award the contract and that award occurred last 

week. We are now evaluating the Exhibition Gallery construction schedule and are 

working to ensure that the delay in the award does not affect our ability to complete 

this space in September 2006 to coincide with the completion of the other visitor 

facilities. 

And finally, now that the President has signed the Supplemental Appropriations 

budget, we are poised to award the contract for the build-out of the House and Senate Expansion Space and we are hopeful that will occur within the next several 

days. While work in the expansion space will extend beyond the completion of the 

Visitor Center facilities by several months, we do not, at this time, expect it to delay 

our ability to open the doors of the Visitor Center to the public. 

Mr. Chairman, while you did visit the project site with me just last month, already much additional progress has been made, which I would like to report to you 

at this time. 
5 

1The cost estimates and categorizations discussed are based on the best information readily 

available, does not include potential additional scope items ($4.2 million), and could change in 

the future. 2 No funds were initially included in the budget for delays, but $3.9 million was added in 2003 

for delay costs (part of $47.8 million). 

First, let me say that our Sequence 2 contractor, Manhattan Construction, continues its operations in all areas of the project site and we have completed fireproofing on all three levels of the CVC, including the Congressional Auditorium. We 

are now completing the remaining fireproofing work in the East Front Extension inside the Capitol Building. While contractors continue to install ductwork and piping 

for all heating, cooling, supply, waste water, fire protection, and electrical systems, 

the concrete masonry block walls continue to rise to define interior spaces. In the 

Exhibition Gallery, for example, blockwalls define the virtual House and Senate theaters and now hide the East Front concrete columns along the west wall of the gallery. The south orientation theater is now almost entirely enclosed as the blockwork 

for the screen wall, interior columns and elevator shaft is complete. 

In the Service Level, the delivery and installation of air handling units continue 

to be the most critical and sensitive activities in this area. The units are so large, 

Mr. Chairman, that they must be delivered in up to five pieces to be able to fit 

through openings and between columns as they are transported and maneuvered 

into place on concrete equipment pads. The largest unit is approximately 40 feet 

long, 20 feet wide and 12 feet high. 

Outside, at the CVC entrance zone, a stone crew began to install the first exterior 

wall stone to the retaining wall along the north pedestrian ramp. 

Finally, at the CVC utility tunnel along East Capitol Street, trench excavation 

was completed to a depth of 20 feet and a concrete slab was placed. The pre-cast 

concrete tunnel sections began to arrive late in the month and installation will continue through May. We are still on schedule to bring steam in the CVC this October. 

Again, thank you for this opportunity to report to you on the CVC project and 

I would be happy to answer any questions you may have at this time. 

CAPITOL VISITOR CENTER EXPLANATION OF ACTUAL AND EXPECTED COST INCREASES 1— 

APRIL 7, 2005

Base Project 

The 1999 project budget was $265 million. 

Congress added $38.5 million for five additional scope items (LOC and House Connector tunnels, extension of East Front elevators, enhanced perimeter security, and 

temporary operations and security), which brought the budget to $303.5 million. 

These items are now expected to cost substantially less (about $30 million) than anticipated when the funds were appropriated. 

The project experienced significant unexpected cost increases of about $34 million 

in its early stages. The bid prices for Sequences 1 and 2 contracts exceeded the 

budget by $4 million and $14 million, respectively, and pre-construction costs exceeded the budget by about $16 million due largely to unforeseen circumstances and 

increased scope. 

Sequence 1 work experienced significant delays (about a year) due to such factors 

as unforeseen conditions, weather, and schedule management issues, and these 

delays, in turn, delayed the start of Sequence 2. Costs associated with delays are 

expected to be about $36 million, of which AOC has already paid $10.3 million for 

Sequence 1 delay costs.2

AOC soon plans to award contracts for several design-to-budget items (e.g. exhibits, House Connector tunnel, and equipment) that are now expected to overrun the 

budget by about $6 million, due largely to higher than expected bid prices. 

In an attempt to save money the AOC delayed proceeding with construction of the 

Utility Tunnel while it was deciding on design options. This delay will cost about 

$1 million. 

AOC has or plans to make about $5 million in design changes due to such problems as necessary redesigns resulting from expansion space requirements, scope 

gaps between Sequences 1 and 2, and designs that were initially incomplete or inaccurate. At least some of these costs are due to fast tracking design and procurement. 

AOC had to or expects to make about $7 million in changes for security and enhanced fire protection and about $4 million in changes due to unforeseen field conditions during construction. 

AOC will likely need about $7 million for future changes to Sequence 2. 
6 

Expansion Spaces and Filtration 

An additional $70 million was added to the project budget for the construction 

and fit-out of the House and Senate expansion spaces. In November 2004 AOC received higher than expected bid prices for the fit-out work. These increased prices 

together with provision for additional contingency are likely to exceed the budgeted 

cost by about $15 million. 

USCP has recently identified the need for a contractor to monitor SCIF space construction and it roughly estimates this will cost about $3.9 million. It is not clear 

if these funds will be funded by the CVC or the USCP budget. 

AOC received an additional $35 million from DOD for an enhanced air filtration 

system. AOC returned about $1.7 million in unobligated funds to DOD at the end 

of fiscal year 2004. This $1.7 million may be needed for future work on the filtration 

system due to its uniqueness and complexity. 
7 

CAPITOL VISITOR CENTER ADDITIONAL FUNDS NEEDS TO COMPLETE THE PROJECT—APRIL 7, 2004 

Project Budget GAO Estimated Cost Variance from Budget Summary Reasons for Additional Funds Needed 

Base Project: 

AOC Administration ................................................. $7,600,000 $8,567,000 $967,000 Additional staff costs due to delays. Design and Construction Admin ............................. 22,288,780 22,885,000 596,000 Cost of extending consultant contracts due to delays and additional commissioning. Construction Management ....................................... 16,000,000 19,218,000 3,218,000 Cost of extending construction manager contract due to delays. Pre-Construction Work ............................................. 27,400,000 26,996,000 (404,000 ) Funds no longer needed per AOC Sequence 1 .............................................................. 114,950,000 113,953,000 (997,000 ) Delay costs; net reduction due to work transferred from Sequence 1 to Sequence 2 contractor. East Front Interface ................................................. 13,600,000 15,494,000 1,894,000 Changes due to differing site conditions, design changes and additional contingency. Sequence 2 .............................................................. 106,300,000 139,086,000 32,786,000 Delay costs ($18.2 million), known and forecasted changes, and additional contingency Jefferson Building Modification ............................... 3,300,000 3,577,000 277,000 Additional funds for punching through Jefferson Bldg. Equipment (Kitchen & AV) ...................................... 4,300,000 4,843,000 543,000 Additional contingency. Exhibit and Film ...................................................... 18,000,000 21,979,000 3,979,000 Higher than expected bid prices and additional contingency. Security .................................................................... 17,350,000 18,218,000 868,000 Additional contingency. 

Base Project Subtotal ......................................... 351,088,780 394,816,000 43,727,000 

Expansion Space: 

House ....................................................................... 35,000,000 43,200,000 8,200,000 Additional contingency and higher than expected bid prices. Senate ...................................................................... 35,000,000 42,100,000 7,100,000 Additional contingency and higher than expected bid prices. 

Subtotal ............................................................... 70,000,000 85,300,000 15,300,000 

Filtration ........................................................................... 33,300,000 35,000,000 1,700,000 Additional contingency. 

Total .................................................................... 454,388,780 515,116,000 60,727,000 

Reserve Fund .................................................................... N/A 43,500,000 .......................... For additional risk and uncertainty. Potential additional scope items ..................................... N/A 4,232,000 .......................... As requested in AOC’s fiscal year 2006 budget. SCIF construction monitoring ........................................... N/A 3,900,000 .......................... Monitoring necessary for accreditation. 

NOTE: Delay cost estimates are for budgetary purposes only; the basis for contractor equitable adjustments has not been evaluated. Expansion space costs are based on bids received 11/09/2004 and have not been fully evaluated by the AOC. Estimate for SCIF construction monitoring provided by USCP. 
8 

CAPITOL VISITOR CENTER RECONCILIATION OF ORIGINAL ESTIMATE TO FUNDING PROVIDED AND 

REQUESTED —APRIL 7, 2005 

[In millions of dollars] 

Amount 

Original Estimate (1999) ...................................................................... 265.0 Funding Dates/Sources: 

$100.0—Oct. 1998 (Pub. L. No. 

105–277) 

$100.0—Sept. 2001 (Pub. L. No. 

107–38) 

$65.0—April 2003; CPC approval of 

amount from Capitol Preservation 

Fund. 

Additional Scope Items: 

Library of Congress Tunnel ......................................................... 12.0 

Improved House Connection ........................................................ 6.0 

Extend Existing East Front Elevators .......................................... 6.0 

Enhanced Perimeter Security ....................................................... 3.5 

Temporary Operations and Security ............................................ 11.0 

Additional Scope Items ........................................................... 38.5 Sept. 2001 (Pub. L. No. 107–38) 

Original Estimate plus Additional Scope Items ..................... 303.5 

Adjustments Based on Gilbane/Tishman/GAO Analyses ...................... 47.8 Sept. 2003 (Pub. L. No. 108–83) 1

Adjusted Estimate After Analyses ........................................... 351.3 

Rescission Applied Against $47.8 million Additional Funding ............ (0.2 ) 

Adjusted Cost Estimate—Base Project .................................. 351.1 

Expansion Space: 

Senate .......................................................................................... 35.0 

House ........................................................................................... 35.0 

Expansion Space ..................................................................... 70.0 Nov. 2001 (Pub. L. No. 107–68) 

Base Project plus Expansion Space ....................................... 421.1 

Security Enhancements ........................................................................ 35.0 April 2003: Funding provided by DOD 

Total Security Enhancements .................................................. 456.1 

Security Enhancement Funds Returned by AOC .................................. (1.7 ) July 2004: Funding returned to DOD 

Total Funding Provided (Base Project plus Expansion Space 

plus Security Enhancements).

454.4 

Funding Requested: 

Transfer from Emergency Response Fund (November 2004/January 2005) ............................................................................... 2 26.3 

Fiscal Year 2006 Budget (construction only) ............................. 36.9 

Total Funding Requested ........................................................ 63.2 

Total Funding Provided and Requested .................................. 3 517.6 

1 Comprised of $35.8 million appropriated to AOC and $12.0 million made available to AOC through transfer from AOC account ‘‘Capitol 

Police Buildings and Grounds’’ to AOC account ‘‘Capitol Visitor Center.’’ The funds being transferred were appropriated under Pub. L. No. 

108–11. 2 In addition, the November 2004 and January 2005 letters included a request for obligation authority of previously provided funding. 3 In addition, Pub. L. No. 108–447 authorizes the transfer of not more than $10.6 million from AOC’s Capitol Building account to the Capitol Visitor Center project. 

Senator ALLARD. I would like to next call on Mr. Walker to give 

us his testimony. We appreciate you helping us with this project, 

Mr. Walker. 
9 

STATEMENT OF DAVID M. WALKER, COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE 

UNITED STATES, GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE 

ACCOMPANIED BY TERRELL DORN, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, PHYSICAL 

INFRASTRUCTURE, GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE 

Mr. WALKER. Thank you, Chairman Allard, Chairman Cochran, 

it’s a pleasure to be before you to be able to discuss GAO’s ongoing 

work regarding the progress of the Capitol Visitor Center project. 

As you both know, we testified on this topic before the Subcommittee on the Legislative Branch, the House Committee on Appropriations in July 2003, and we continue to periodically brief congressional representatives, the CVC Project Executive, and the Architect of the Capitol with regard to our related activities. Before 

I come to the bottom line, Mr. Chairman, I assume that my entire 

statement will be included in the record. 

Senator ALLARD. Yes. 

Mr. WALKER. Thank you. 

Senator ALLARD. Yes, your statement will be made a part of the 

complete record. 

Mr. WALKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Therefore, I’ll summarize the critical elements. 

I think it’s important to note that the AOC has overall responsibility for this complex project, but a construction management firm, 

mainly Gilbane Building Company, is providing a range of construction management services in support of the AOC, including coordinating the activities of the major construction contractors, monitoring worker safety and providing AOC with the status information for reporting to the Congress. The Architect of the Capitol has 

decided to implement the project in two phases or sequences. In 

June 2002 it awarded the sequence 1 contract, the excavation and 

structural work to Centex Construction Company, and in April 

2003, it awarded the sequence 2 contract for the mechanical, electrical, plumbing and interior finishing work to Manhattan Construction Company. 

In summary, the CVC project is taking about 2 years longer than 

originally planned, is expected to cost between $522 million and 

$559 million, significantly more than originally estimated. However, the majority of the delays and cost increases were largely outside of AOC’s control. But weaknesses in AOC’s schedule and contract management activities have contributed to a portion of the 

delays and the cost overruns. 

Of the project’s estimated cost increase, about $147 million is due 

to scope changes, such as the addition of the House and Senate expansion spaces. About $45 million are attributed to factors that are 

partially or outside the ability of AOC to control, such as higher 

than expected bids on the sequence 2 contract, due to some—in 

part due to some—unexpected conditions below ground. And about 

$58 million are due to factors that were somewhat within AOC’s 

ability to control, such as delays. 

Also, our analysis of the CVC worker safety data show the injury 

and illness rate for 2003 was about 50 percent higher for the CVC 

than for comparable construction sites, and that the rate for 2004 

was about 30 percent higher than 2003. I will, however, note Mr. 

Chairman, that we have done a little bit of work for 2005, for the 
10 

first quarter of 2005 and things seem to have improved in the first 

quarter of 2005, although we haven’t completed that work yet. 

Finally, a number of monthly reports to the Congress in our view 

have not fully and fairly reflected the status of the project’s construction schedules and costs, and in some cases are not including 

accurate worker safety data. This has led to certain expectation 

gaps within the Congress. I might also note that AOC’s current 

schedule completion date for the CVC is now September 2003—pardon me, 2006. I apologize. We believe however that given past 

problems and future risks and uncertainties, that the completion 

date may be delayed to between December 2006 and March 2007. 

Additionally AOC’s scheduled completion date of the interior of the 

House and Senate expansion spaces is now March 2007. 

I think it’s important to note that the AOC has taken a number 

of actions to improve its management of the project. I will also note 

that since Bob Hixon has joined the AOC in March 2004, we have 

seen a significant improvement, and I think that should be noted 

for the record. 

However, a number of actions still need to be taken in order to 

fully identify the challenges that we have brought forth. To help 

prevent further schedule delays, control cost growth and enhance 

worker safety, AOC urgently needs to give priority attention to 

managing the project’s construction schedules and contracts, including those contract provisions that address worker safety. These 

actions are imperative if future cost growth, schedule delays and 

worker safety problems are to be avoided. 

AOC also needs to see that it reports accurate information to the 

Congress on the project. Furthermore decisions by the Congress 

will have to be made regarding additional funding needed to complete construction and to address any related risk and uncertainties that may arise. Mr. Chairman, that summarizes my statement. 

I’ll be happy to answer any questions that any of you may have. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DAVID M. WALKER

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: I am pleased to be here today 

to discuss GAO’s ongoing work on the progress of the Capitol Visitor Center (CVC) 

project. As you know, we have been performing this work in response to requests 

from members of the Capitol Preservation Commission (CPC) and as directed by the 

Conference Report to the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999 (House Conference Report 105–825) and the Conference Report on the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 2004 (House Conference Report 

108–279). 

Approved in the late 1990s, CVC is the largest project on the Capitol grounds in 

over 140 years. Its purposes are to provide greater security for all persons working 

in or visiting the U.S. Capitol and to enhance the educational experience of visitors 

who have come to learn about Congress and the Capitol building. When completed, 

this three-story, underground facility, located on the east side of the Capitol, is designed to be a seamless addition to the Capitol complex that does not detract from 

the appearance of the Capitol or its historic landscaping. According to current plans, 

it will include theaters, an auditorium, exhibit space, a service tunnel for truck loading and deliveries, storage, and additional space for use by the House and Senate. 

In my testimony today, I will discuss the Architect of the Capitol’s (AOC) management of the project’s schedules and contracts; the project’s estimated costs, including 

risks and uncertainties; worker safety issues; and AOC’s monthly reporting to Congress on the project. I will also discuss recommendations that we have made in previous testimony and briefings and the actions AOC has taken in response. We testified on this topic before the Subcommittee on the Legislative Branch, House Com-
11 

1GAO, Capitol Visitor Center: Current Status of Schedule and Estimated Cost, GAO–03–1014T 

(Washington, D.C.: July 15, 2003. 2The base project includes a finished visitor center shell and core, an extended loading dock 

service tunnel, exterior finishes, improvements to the East Plaza, construction of unfinished 

House and Senate expansion space shell, exhibits, technical security systems, a utility tunnel, 

and a connecting tunnel to the Library of Congress. The base project does not include other 

items, such as finishing the House and Senate expansion space and certain security-related enhancements. 

mittee on Appropriations, in July 2003,1 and we have periodically briefed congressional representatives, the CVC project executive, and the Architect of the Capitol 

since then. 

My statement is based on our monitoring of the CVC project, which included reviewing monthly status reports, contract files, schedules, contractors’ cost estimates, 

other organizations’ construction management policies and procedures, industry best 

practices, and data for construction projects compiled by the Construction Industry 

Institute and the Bureau of Labor Statistics. We have attended regularly scheduled 

meetings on the CVC project’s progress; observed construction work at the site; and 

discussed management, procurement, and safety issues with AOC, contractor personnel, as well as experienced construction and contract management personnel at 

other organizations. Additionally, we obtained expert assistance in analyzing construction project costs and schedules from KPMG, Hulett & Associates, and the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA). We did not perform an audit; rather, we performed our work to assist Congress in conducting its oversight activities. 

Before I summarize our principal observations and recommendations for moving 

forward, let me briefly set the stage. As previously noted, AOC is managing and has 

overall responsibility for this complex project, but a construction management firm, 

Gilbane Building Company, is providing a range of construction management services in support of AOC, including coordinating the activities of the major construction contractors, monitoring worker safety, and providing AOC with status information for reporting to Congress. AOC is implementing the project in two phases, or 

sequences. In June 2002, it awarded the sequence 1 contract for the excavation and 

structural work to Centex Construction Company, and in April 2003, it awarded the 

sequence 2 contract for mechanical, electrical, plumbing and interior finishing work 

to Manhattan Construction Company. 

In summary, the CVC project is taking about 2 years longer than planned and is expected to cost between about $522 million and $559 million—significantly more 

than originally estimated. The majority of delays and cost increases were largely 

outside AOC’s control, but weaknesses in AOC’s schedule and contract management 

contributed to a portion of the delays and cost overruns. Of the project’s estimated 

cost increase, about $147 million is due to scope changes, such as the addition of 

the House and Senate expansion spaces; about $45 million to other factors also outside or largely outside AOC’s control, such as higher than expected bid prices on 

the sequence 2 contract; and about $58 million to factors more within AOC’s control, 

such as delays. Also, our analysis of CVC worker safety data showed that the injury 

and illness rate for 2003 was about 50 percent higher for CVC than for comparable 

construction sites and that the rate for 2004 was about 30 percent higher than the 

rate for 2003. Finally, a number of AOC’s monthly reports to Congress have not accurately reflected the status of the project’s construction schedules and costs and 

have transmitted inaccurate worker safety data. This has led to certain ‘‘expectation 

gaps’’ within Congress. 

AOC has taken a number of actions to improve its management of the project; 

however, these actions have not yet fully corrected all identified problems. To help 

prevent further schedule delays, control cost growth, and enhance worker safety, 

AOC urgently needs to give priority attention to managing the project’s construction 

schedules and contracts, including those contract provisions that address worker 

safety. These actions are imperative if further cost growth, schedule delays, and 

worker safety problems are to be avoided. AOC also needs to see that it reports accurate information to Congress on the project. Furthermore, decisions by Congress 

will have to be made regarding the additional funding needed to complete construction and address any risks and uncertainties that arise. 

Enhanced Schedule Management Needed 

According to AOC, the entire base project is about 60 percent complete.2 Except 

for some punch-list items, such as fixing water leaks, construction work under the 

sequence 1 contract is now complete. This work includes the basic structure, the 

truck and Library of Congress tunnels, and the East Front interface. AOC and its 

contractors also completed work associated with the Inauguration. Work has started 

on the sequence 2 contract, including fitting out and finishing the basic structure 
12 

and the Library of Congress tunnel and constructing the utility tunnel and space 

for the exhibits. AOC has just made contractual arrangements for fitting out and 

finishing the Senate and House expansion spaces and is now procuring the House 

Connector tunnel and the connection between the Library of Congress tunnel and 

the Jefferson building. 

AOC’s scheduled completion date for CVC is now September 2006, nearly 20 

months later than originally planned. We believe, given past problems and future 

risks and uncertainties, that the completion date may be delayed until sometime between December 2006 and March 2007. Additionally, AOC’s scheduled completion 

date for the interior of the House and Senate expansion spaces is March 2007. 

The project’s schedule delays are due in part to scope changes, design changes, 

and unforeseen conditions beyond AOC’s control (e.g., adding the Senate and House 

expansion spaces and encountering underground obstructions). However, factors 

more within AOC’s control also contributed to the delays. First, the original schedule was overly optimistic. Second, AOC has had difficulty obtaining acceptable, contractually required schedules from its contractors, such as a master summary schedule from its construction management contractor. In addition, AOC and its contractors did not adhere to contract provisions designed for effective schedule management, including those calling for monthly progress review meetings and schedule 

updates and revisions. AOC and its construction management contractor also had 

difficulty coordinating the work of the sequence 1 and 2 contractors and did not systematically track and document delays and their causes as they occurred or apportion time and costs to the appropriate parties on a timely basis. Additionally, AOC 

has not yet reached full agreement with CPC on the extent to which construction 

must be completed before the facility can be opened to the public, and AOC has not 

yet developed an overall summary schedule that links the completion of construction 

with the steps necessary to prepare CVC for facility operations. Finally, AOC needs 

to fully implement our recommendation that it develop plans to mitigate the 

project’s remaining risks and uncertainties, such as shortages in the supply of stone 

or skilled stone workers, unforeseen conditions associated with the remaining underground tunnels, and commissioning the building in the allotted time. 

We have made numerous recommendations to improve schedule management, and 

AOC has taken actions to implement most of them. We believe, however, that both 

AOC and its construction management contractor will need to sustain their attention and apply additional effort to managing the project’s schedule, as well as fully 

implement our recommendations, to help keep the project on track and as close to 

budget as possible. More specifically, AOC needs to give priority attention to: obtaining and maintaining acceptable project schedules, including reassessing the times 

allotted for completing sequence 2 work; aggressively monitoring and managing contractors’ adherence to the schedule, including documenting and addressing the 

causes of delays; developing and implementing risk mitigation plans; reaching 

agreement on what project elements must be complete before CVC can open to the 

public; and preparing a summary schedule, as Congress requested, that integrates 

the major steps needed to complete CVC construction with the steps necessary to 

prepare for operations. 

Stronger Contract Management Needed 

AOC is relying on contractors to design, build, and help manage CVC’s construction and help prepare for its operation. AOC has obligated over $350 million for contracts and contract modifications for these activities. We found that AOC needed to 

take additional steps to ensure that it was (1) receiving reasonable prices for proposed contract modifications, (2) obtaining adequate support for contractors’ requests for reimbursement of incurred costs, (3) adequately overseeing its contractors’ 

performance, and (4) taking appropriate steps to see that contractual work is not 

done before it is appropriately authorized under contractual arrangements. 

—Initially, AOC was not preparing independent government estimates as part of 

its price analyses for proposed modifications to the two major contracts. In early 

2004, AOC hired an employee for the CVC staff with contract management experience, and AOC has improved its capacity to obtain reasonable prices by, 

among other things, preparing government estimates as part of its effort to 

evaluate the reasonableness of prices offered by the contractors for the proposed 

modifications. 

—Although most CVC work is being done under fixed price contracts, for which 

payment is not based on incurred costs, AOC has received or is anticipating requests for reimbursement of over $30 million in costs that the contractors say 
13 

3 Reimbursements for the costs of non-weather-related delays not attributable to the contractor are standard practice in the construction industry. 4Our November 2004 estimate of $515 million was similar to AOC’s estimate based on work 

done by one of its consultants; however, except for the $4.2 million in additional scope items, 

AOC has not requested funds to cover risks and uncertainties provided for in our $44 million. 5Public Law 108–447, enacted in December 2004, provided that up to $10.6 million could be 

transferred from funds appropriated for Capitol Buildings operations and maintenance to CVC 

upon the approval of the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations. In March 2005, AOC 

requested that about $4 million of these funds be transferred to CVC, including some funds for 

construction-related work, such as design of the gift shop space. As of May 12, the House Committee had not yet approved this transfer, and none of the $10.6 million has been included in 

the $483.7 million figure above. 6Last week, Congress enacted legislation that provided the additional funding requested by 

the Capitol Police for security monitoring. Public Law 109–13, Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief, 2005 (May 11, 2005). 7Other risks and uncertainties that continue to face the project include, but are not limited 

to, shortages in the supply of stone and skilled stone workers, possible additional requirements 

for life safety or security changes, unknown operator requirements, and contractor coordination 

issues. 

they incurred because of delays.3 In addition, AOC has awarded some contract 

modifications for unpriced work that will require reliable information on incurred costs. According to the Defense Contract Audit Agency, several concerns 

relating to the contractors’ accounting systems need to be addressed to ensure 

the reliability of the contractors’ incurred cost information. 

—AOC has continued to experience difficulty getting fully acceptable performance 

from contractors. For example, as of April 30, 2005, the construction management contractor had not provided an acceptable master schedule identifying appropriate links between tasks and key milestones, and it has not been providing 

AOC with accurate safety data for an extended period of time. Similarly, one 

of AOC’s major construction contractors had not corrected recurring safety concerns over an extended period. 

—One of AOC’s CVC consultants began work several months before AOC had 

awarded a contract to it authorizing the work. AOC agreed to take action to 

prevent this type of problem from recurring. 

We have made several recommendations to enhance AOC’s contract management. 

AOC has generally agreed and taken action to implement these recommendations. 

For example, it has enhanced its capacity to review cost-related data submitted by 

contractors with requests for reimbursement based on incurred costs, and it has better evaluated its construction management contractor’s performance and taken action to obtain improvements. To help prevent further schedule delays and control 

cost growth, AOC needs to aggressively manage its contractors’ performance, particularly in the areas of managing schedules and obtaining reasonable prices on contractual actions, and continue to ensure that contractors’ requests for payment 

based on incurred costs are adequately evaluated. It also needs to ensure that its 

contractors report accurate safety data and promptly act to correct safety concerns. 

Project Costs and Funding Provided as of May 2005 

We currently estimate that the cost to complete the construction of the CVC project, including proposed additions to its scope, is about $522 million without any 

allowance for risks and uncertainties.4 Of this amount, $483.7 million has been provided to date.5 In November 2004, we estimated that the cost to complete the scope of work approved at that time was likely to be about $515 million, without an allowance for risks and uncertainties. Since November 2004, AOC and the U.S. Capitol 

Police have proposed about $7 million in scope changes that we included in our current estimate, bringing it to $522 million.6 However, the project continues to face 

risks and uncertainties, such as unforeseen conditions, scope gaps and changes, and 

possible further delays.7 To provide for these, we estimated in November 2004 that 

an additional $44 million would likely be needed, bringing our estimate of the total 

cost to about $559 million. We continue to believe that this estimate of the project’s 

total costs is appropriate. We have not increased our allowance for risks and uncertainties in response to the recent requests for $7 million in scope changes because 

we consider such changes among the risks and uncertainties that the project faced 

in November. 

Over the years, CVC construction costs have increased considerably. Most of these 

costs were outside or largely outside AOC’s control, but other costs were more within its control. About $147 million of the cost increase was due to changes in the 

project’s scope, many of which were for security enhancements following September 

11 and the anthrax attacks in October 2001. Congress added the House and Senate 

expansion spaces and the Library of Congress tunnel to the project’s scope after the 
14 

8 Essentially, AOC’s $36.9 million fiscal year 2006 budget request was consistent with our $515.1 million estimated cost at completion except that it included $4.2 million for the additional scope items and excluded the $1.7 million for filtration—$517.6 million less $4.2 million 

plus $1.7 million equals $515.1 million. 9The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) calculates the number of injury/illness incidents per 

100 full-time workers as follows: (N/EH) × 200,000, where (N) equals number of injuries/illnesses, (EH) equals total hours worked by all employees during the calendar year, and 200,000 

equals base for 100 equivalent full-time workers (working 40 hours per week, 50 weeks per 

year). BLS calculates the number of lost-time incidents per 100 full-time workers as follows: 

(LT/EH) × 200,000 where (LT) equals cases of (1) days away from work, (2) restricted work or 

(3) work transfer, (EH) equals number of employee hours for the desired period and 200,000 

equals base for 100 equivalent full-time workers (working 40 hours per week, 50 weeks per 

year). 10 In early 2005, the major contractors provided us with updated data for injuries and illnesses 

and lost time in 2004. We used these data to recalculate the 2004 rates. For example, the 

monthly rate for injuries and illnesses in April 2004 increased to 15.7. 

original project’s cost was estimated; similarly, the Department of Defense recommended and funded an air filtration system for the facility. Other factors also 

outside or largely outside AOC’s control contributed about $45 million to the increase. For example, bid prices for the sequence 1 and 2 contracts exceeded budgeted costs, and unforeseen field conditions, such as underground obstructions, necessitated additional work. Finally, factors more within AOC’s control accounted for 

about $58 million of the expected additional project costs. For example, the project 

experienced significant delays during sequence 1, and we expect AOC will incur additional costs in the future because we believe the sequence 2 work will not be done 

by AOC’s September 2006 completion date; slow decision-making by AOC also contributed to higher costs. 

In its fiscal year 2006 budget request, AOC asked Congress for an additional 

$36.9 million for CVC construction. AOC believes this amount will be sufficient to 

complete the project’s construction and, if approved, will bring the total funding provided for the project to $520.6 million. AOC’s request includes the $4.2 million for 

potential additions to the project’s scope (e.g., congressional seals, an orientation 

film, and backpack storage space), but does not include $1.7 million for the air filtration system—an amount that AOC thought it would not need and returned to 

DOD, but that we believe AOC will still likely need. AOC believes that it could obtain these funds from DOD if needed. Thus, with a $1.7 million increase for the air 

filtration system, the total estimated cost to complete the project’s construction 

would be the $522.3 million cited above without provision for risks and uncertainties.8

To continue to move the project forward, Congress will have to consider the additional funding AOC has requested for fiscal year 2006 to complete the project, including the $4.2 million in additional scope items. Through effective risk mitigation, 

as we have recommended, and effective implementation of our other recommendations for enhancing schedule and contract management, AOC may be able to avoid 

some of the $44 million that we allowed for risks and uncertainties. However, given 

the project’s complexity and the additional requests for funds already made and anticipated, we believe AOC will likely need much of this $44 million even with effective implementation of our recommendations. Already, it appears that AOC may 

need additional funds for sequence 2 changes in fiscal year 2005. For example, as 

of April 30, 2005, AOC had identified proposed changes to the sequence 2 contract 

that it considered necessary and expected to cost about $13.8 million. This sum is 

about $700,000 less than the $14.5 million AOC has available during fiscal year 

2005 for sequence 2 changes. 

Worker Safety Issues 

Because the number of construction workers at the CVC site is soon expected to 

increase significantly, worker safety will continue to be an important issue during 

the remainder of the project. Our review of worker safety issues found that the construction management contractor’s monthly CVC progress reports contained some 

inaccurate data for key measures of worker safety, including injuries and illnesses 

and lost time. For example, the contractor reported 3 lost-time incidents for 2004, 

but our analysis identified 45 such incidents. These inaccuracies resulted in both 

overstatements and understatements of rates.9 For instance, the contractor reported 

a rate of 6.3 injuries and illnesses for April 2004, whereas our analysis identified 

12.5.10 The construction management contractor attributed the inaccuracies to key 

data missing from its calculations, unawareness of a formula change that began in 

2002, mathematical errors, and poor communication with the major construction 

contractors. 
15 

11The CVC rates are sensitive to small variations in the number of injuries, illnesses, or losttime incidents for a given year. 

According to our analysis, the rates for injuries and illnesses and for lost time 

were higher for CVC than for comparable construction sites. For 2003, the injury 

and illness rate was about 50 percent higher, and the lost-time rate was about 160 

percent higher.11 Additionally, both the numbers and the rates for injuries and illnesses and for lost time worsened from 2003 to 2004. For example, the injury and 

illness rate increased from 9.1 in 2003 to 12.2 in 2004, and the lost-time rate increased from 8.1 to 10.4. AOC and its contractors have taken some actions to promote and manage safety on the site, such as conducting monthly safety audits and 

making recommendations to improve safety. However, at the time of our review, neither AOC nor its construction management contractor had analyzed the results of 

the monthly safety audits to identify trends or concerns, and neither had reviewed 

the safety audit findings in conjunction with the injury and illness data. Our analysis of key safety audit data for the first 10 months of 2004 identified about 700 

safety concerns, the most frequent of which was inadequate protection against falls. 

Furthermore, AOC had not fully exercised its authority to have the contractors take 

corrective actions to address recurring safety concerns. 

We recommended that, to improve safety and reporting, AOC ensure the collection 

and reporting of accurate injury and illness and lost-time data, work with its contractors to develop a mechanism for analyzing the data and identifying corrective 

actions, and more fully exercise its authority to take appropriate enforcement actions when warranted. AOC agreed with our recommendations and initiated corrective actions. However, follow-up work that we did in early 2005 at AOC’s request 

indicated the corrective actions had not yet fully eliminated errors in reporting. 

AOC agreed that continued action on our recommendations was essential. 

Reporting to Congress 

Both AOC and its construction management contractor prepare monthly progress 

reports on CVC. AOC relies heavily on its contractor for the information it puts into 

its own reports, which it sends to Congress. We have found that AOC’s reports have 

sometimes failed to identify problems, such as cost increases and schedule delays. 

This has resulted in certain ‘‘expectation gaps’’ within Congress. We have suggested 

to AOC that its reports could be more helpful to Congress if, for example, they discussed critical issues facing the project and important upcoming decisions. AOC has 

been making improvements to its monthly reports and has agreed to continue doing 

so. 

Mr. Chairman, this completes my prepared statement. We would be happy to answer questions that you and other Subcommittee Members may have. 

COMPLETION DATE

Senator ALLARD. Thank you for your testimony, we appreciate 

that. I’ll proceed to some of our questions. 

Mr. Hantman, you say in your statement that the Architect of 

the Capitol now has a fully integrated master schedule, and you 

say the project can be completed by September 2006. Does this date 

reflect any known changes that could affect the completion date, 

but have not yet been incorporated into the schedule such as the 

exhibit construction, and some sequence 2 change orders? 

Mr. HANTMAN. Mr. Chairman, relative to the exhibit construction, our sense at this point in time, since we just signed the contract on May 4, is that it should not impact the opening. Clearly, 

as we discussed at our last hearing, the total visitor experience is 

an important one for people to come on in, to be screened respectfully, to go down into the Great Hall to see the orientation film, 

and to be brought into the building for their tours and also to have 

the exhibit experience. As we are looking at the schedule right 

now, now that we were able to sign it on the 4th, we do not see, 

at this point, any impact to completing that in concurrence with 

the visitor portion as well. As Mr. Walker indicated, of course, the 
16 

expansion areas which we just awarded yesterday, in fact, will be 

later on. 

And one of the concerns that we have been discussing clearly 

with the Capitol Preservation Commission senior staff is what really needs to be in place for the visitors to be welcomed effectively 

to the building. And we believe because of the nature of the setup 

of the mechanical room, we have 23 separate air handling units, 

the air handling units that deal with the areas in the exhibition— 

I’m sorry—the expansion space, could essentially be serving just 

those areas. Therefore any dust in the air would be taken up in 

those areas as opposed to in the central visitor center portion, or 

in the exhibition area, which was a concern of Ms. Reynolds and 

the people from the Archives. So we believe that the whole visitor 

experience with all the areas that are under contract as of now, 

will be ready for them in September. That’s basically what Bob 

Hixon can talk to in terms of the whole schedule and show you 

some boards on where we are on that. 

SEQUENCE 2 CHANGE ORDERS

Senator ALLARD. Did you talk about some of your sequence 2 

change orders? 

Mr. HIXON. At this time, all of the sequence 2 change orders, the 

impact of all those is included in our schedule to the extent that 

we are aware of them. There are new change orders coming on 

board all the time, and as those come on, we continue to evaluate 

those to see if there is an impact. At this time, based on all the 

information that we have to date, we are in good shape. There are 

a couple of areas of concern. There are several elements that still 

need to be procured—there’s the House connector tunnel, there is 

the Jefferson Building work that needs to be factored into the Library of Congress tunnel. There is a little bit to be finished as far 

as connections to the utility tunnel, all of those items suppose some 

risk which could have some impact. We certainly want to make 

sure we don’t have an impact, but those areas are still ahead of us 

as far as an evaluation. 

Senator ALLARD. Could you give me a little clearer understanding of how the change orders come about? 

Mr. HIXON. Certainly, change orders come to us usually in one 

of two ways, either the contractor discovers something that they 

feel is extra under the contract or that ask a question of the designer, or the designer discovers an issue that needs to be changed 

in some manner. For example, they may find that a dimension 

doesn’t work correctly, and they have to adjust ceiling height or 

they have to adjust the width of a corridor, or we may discover that 

materials that were selected don’t work well in that, say the wainscot in the Great Hall for example, the stone, when you put the two 

pieces together and the mock up didn’t match and we had a change 

in the stone—so those kinds of things are occurring all the time. 

There are some things in the project that sometimes don’t dimensionally fit, we have materials that no longer are available that 

have to be replaced with other materials, or you put something like 

stone together and you create the mock up to make sure it does 

work well, and you find out you need to—— 
17 

CONTRACTOR CHANGE ORDERS

Senator ALLARD. I can understand that. But on the contractor’s 

side, what drives change orders? 

Mr. HIXON. From the contractor side, more often than not there 

are different site conditions, especially during the sequence 1 contract, or else they will find issues associated—if we are in sequence 

2 right now, for example—there are some issues associated with 

the installation of the sequence 1 work, a concrete column may be 

an inch out of position and have to be chipped in order for the sequence 2 work to be done, things of that nature. 

Senator ALLARD. Aren’t these things that ordinarily the contractor should figure into his quote when he initially gives you the 

bid? 

Mr. HIXON. Well, the sequence 2 contractor, when he gives you 

his quote, is going to assume that the sequence 1 contractor’s work 

is in place, he will ask for extra for whatever work he has to do, 

we will have to back charge the sequence 1—— 

Senator ALLARD. And part of the problem is the sequence 1 contractor didn’t do the work or the sequence 2 contractor has some 

concerns with sequence 1 work, is that how that comes about? 

Mr. HIXON. If he finds that something is not in the right location, 

he will alert us and we will have to either have the work done by 

the sequence 1 contractor to correct it, or else the sequence 2 contractor will perform the work and we’ll back charge the sequence 

1 contractor. It should be a no net cost to the Government. 

Senator ALLARD. That’s what I wanted to make sure, that it’s no 

net to the Government. It seems to me these are contractor responsibilities. 

Mr. HIXON. They are, yes. Those kinds of deficiencies, if it’s a different site condition issue, for example, work is occurring in the 

utility tunnel, and something unknown is discovered, then that’s a 

different site condition, and the contractor is entitled to compensation for added costs for things that are different from what he could 

have reasonably contemplated. 

Senator ALLARD. There may be some unknown event that you 

didn’t anticipate. 

Mr. HIXON. That’s correct. 

Senator ALLARD. Okay, my time is expired, Mr. Chairman, do 

you have any questions? 

CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT MANAGEMENT

Senator COCHRAN. Mr. Walker, you said that the AOC should improve its management of the construction contract if further delays 

and cost increases are to be avoided. What do you suggest the AOC 

do that is not being done already? 

Mr. WALKER. We have had a number of recommendations, Mr. 

Chairman, one of which Alan talked on earlier, and that is, we recommended for a long time that there needs to be a comprehensive 

and integrated project plan that, my understanding is they have 

one now, we have not had an opportunity to review it in detail, 

we’ve received a very high level briefing on that. 

Second, there are a number of issues that are very fundamental, 

like how do you define complete? That still has not been defined 
18 

yet, there is not an understanding between the Capitol Preservation Commission personnel and AOC yet on what the term ‘‘complete’’ means. There are a number of—— 

Senator COCHRAN. We can look in the dictionary and find out 

what it means, can’t we? 

Mr. WALKER. You’re correct that Webster’s does provide some 

help in this regard, however, the details matter. For example, Alan 

talked about at what state do things have to be in before you start 

allowing the public to be able to come in? Now, candidly that might 

be deemed to be complete for purposes of being able to allow public 

access, but on the other hand there could be still be activities undergoing which could require time and money before—— 

Senator COCHRAN. Well, what’s the Architect supposed to do 

about that? 

Mr. WALKER. Well, I think it’s important for the Architect to be 

able to work constructively, as he’s trying to do, I believe, with the 

key personnel in the Congress to be able to make sure that there’s 

not an expectation gap that exists. 

Senator COCHRAN. Well, we have got some in Congress whose expectations are way beyond reality. 

Mr. WALKER. That can happen, Mr. Chairman. If you have 100 

Members of the Senate, and 435 Members of the House, not everybody thinks the same way. 

Senator COCHRAN. Well, if he tries to please every Member of 

Congress, we are going to be working on this forever. 

Mr. WALKER. And that would be totally inappropriate and unrealistic. Just as we find ourselves sometimes not being able to 

please every Member of Congress as well. 

Senator COCHRAN. I have no further questions. 

INTEGRATED SCHEDULE

Senator ALLARD. Mr. Hantman, the GAO has reported several 

times that your schedules were somewhat optimistic. Your staff 

agreed to have the durations of the schedule’s tasks reassessed. 

Has this reassessment been done? 

Mr. HANTMAN. Yes, and we’re constantly doing that. Maybe it 

would be appropriate, Mr. Chairman, for us to walk you through 

a few of the things that we’ve done since our last hearing in response to the imperatives of this integrated schedule, and tell you 

what we have done, where it’s going and how we are constantly reviewing these issues. 

Senator ALLARD. And while you are doing that, could you reassure me and the subcommittee as to how you know that this latest 

schedule is realistic, and when you think the total reassessment 

will be done. 

Mr. HIXON. You can see from the board here that we have established this integrated project master schedule. We now have everything tied into one large schedule, both the Manhattan work and 

all the other items of work, such as way finding and things of that 

nature, that are all associated with completion of space. We have 

gone through this, and to ensure that all the activities that are required will result in a completion date in September 2006 for all 

of those activities, except the expansion space, and I wanted to 

show you a couple of boards just to give you some idea of what we 
19 

are doing. We are not looking for anybody to read this, obviously, 

because you can’t. 

Senator ALLARD. You can’t see it from here. 

Mr. HIXON. I think it’s too low behind the—what we’ve done is 

we’ve—this is just an example of one of the charts, this is the critical path, all those activities that are required that have what we 

call zero float in them, every activity has to occur on schedule to 

be completed, other activities—you can see this is only a minor portion of the 3,500 to 4,000 activities depending on where we are in 

the process. But you can see this is only a few of those activities, 

but these are all critical to being done on time. 

Mr. HANTMAN. But before you leave that—— 

Senator ALLARD. Those red lines, it looks to me like those are 

dates or activities that have been extended—— 

Mr. HIXON. Okay, well what you see here this one set of activities across here is the House and Senate expansion space, the blue 

line that runs vertically here is the date, the current date, what 

this allows us to do is say, ‘‘Okay, on a particular date, what activity should be finished and which activities are yet to be done in the 

future?’’ Activities are indicated here on the left side of the chart, 

and like I say, these are only the critical activities, so it may be 

something like the pedestals that support the Tennessee marble 

base in the Great Hall, and when does that have to be done, that 

is a critical activity, and it’s reflected on the chart. 

But the bottom line here, Mr. Chairman, is at the bottom line. 

It basically shows that in September 2006, all of this whole string 

of activities will be completed—again with the exception of the two 

broad lines that talk about the expansion space for the House and 

the Senate. 

Senator ALLARD. And you think this is realistic, Mr. Hixon? 

Mr. HIXON. Yes, sir. At this point, based on everything that we 

are aware of, this is entirely realistic. We have looked through the 

individual dates, we have brought an engineering firm that does 

construction management to assist us in this, as well as Gilbane’s 

review of the Manhattan schedule, and we all feel comfortable that 

we can achieve this date, the durations are good, the logic is good. 

POTENTIAL RISK

Mr. HANTMAN. One of the things, clearly, that GAO and we are 

working together on, and what they have been doing with us in the 

past, is they are assessing potential risk. We are assuming that, 

again, nothing untoward happens with the tunnel that we are excavating on East Capitol Street, that we are able to do the work 

under the house stairs for the connector tunnel there, things of 

that nature. So, in terms of our discussion with GAO, clearly in 

terms of dollars and time, they are looking at things that we don’t 

see on the horizon at this point and time, and can’t predict. But 

everything that we are aware of right now, even the level of risk 

that we believe we have on those pieces of work, we believe it is 

a tight schedule, but it is a doable schedule now. 

Senator ALLARD. And Mr. Walker, Mr. Hantman has indicated 

that he had been working with your office on this and I assume 

that your staff has had an opportunity to review this new integrated schedule, and you believe it’s complete and accurate? 
20 

Mr. WALKER. Well, first, Mr. Chairman, we received a high-level 

briefing of this new integrated schedule, we have not had an opportunity to review it in detail, we do plan to do that and we obviously 

will report back to the interested parties after we have a chance 

to do that. I think in fairness—— 

Senator ALLARD. Maybe you can follow up on this, this would be 

a good follow-up question a month from now, we can follow up on 

that. 

Mr. WALKER. Absolutely, Mr. Chairman. I think it’s important to 

note that the AOC is making a good faith effort to come up with 

what they think the schedule is going to be, what they think the 

cost is going to be. Reasonable people can and will differ on these 

factors. I think history will show in the past they’ve tended to be 

overly optimistic, and that we looked at it more from the standpoint, well what are some of the risks that could happen typically 

in construction projects and have happened, what are some of the 

uncertainties that we may not be aware of, and our general view 

is you’re better to exceed expectations then to continue to disappoint people. I think our history has been pretty accurate over 

the past with regard to schedule and costs, I think a couple of examples of things that have been or are to be resolved would be, for 

example, it’s my understanding that even if the September 15 date 

is met, that there will not be full security features in place at that 

point in time. I don’t know what security features would be in 

place, and whether or not they would be acceptable to Congress 

and whether or not they would be acceptable to the Capitol Police 

and other interested parties. It’s also my understanding that certain things will be completed to a temporary state, not a final 

state. That may or may not be acceptable to Congress, all the more 

reason why I come back to—what’s the definition of complete, and 

what status has to exist in order for the facility to be utilized? 

EXPANSION SPACE

Senator ALLARD. We haven’t talked any about the expansion 

space here and that’s been awarded. I think you indicated that in 

your remarks. What is the completion date now for the expansion 

space? 

Mr. HIXON. The completion date for the expansion space contractually is March 18, 2007. We expect the work, except for the integration of systems, to be done September 18, 2006. 

Senator ALLARD. And that’s all been worked into the master 

schedule I assume? 

Mr. HIXON. That has got to be put into the master schedule, the 

award made occurred on Monday, and we haven’t—— 

Senator ALLARD. But it will be. 

Mr. HIXON. Yes, sir. 

Senator ALLARD. And that would be another question we might 

have a month from now. 

Now, back to you, Mr. Walker, in November 2004, GAO advised 

that the project was likely to be completed in late 2006, or early 

2007 due to optimistic durations and risks and uncertainties. Since 

that time additional issues have arisen that may extend the 

projects timeline. Mr. Walker, what is the GAO’s current assessment for when the project could be certified to be opened? 
21 

Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, our view is considering certain risks 

and uncertainties, we think it’s more realistic to expect for the 

project, the base project, to be done in December 2006 to March 

2007, and at the present point in time, we don’t have a basis to 

differ with the Architect of the Capitol on the March 2007 date for 

the expansion. We take some comfort in the fact that contract has 

now been awarded, but that’s where we’re at at the present point 

in time. 

COMPLETION AND OCCUPANCY

Senator ALLARD. I assume that when we talk about certified to 

be open, that’s actually an occupation time, is that correct? 

Mr. WALKER. Candidly, Mr. Chairman, these are some of the 

issues that have to be worked out, I think there’s two issues—one 

of which is, what has to be done in order for it to be occupied, or 

utilized in some way? And then second, when is it totally done? 

Such that we are no longer incurring any related costs. 

Senator ALLARD. And totally occupied. 

Mr. WALKER. Not only totally occupied, but totally complete, such 

that the contractors are no longer on the site, we’re no longer incurring any additional costs. Those are two different dates. There 

may be several dates involved here. 

Senator ALLARD. But the practical date is when is it going to be 

finished so it can be totally occupied. Do you have a time in mind 

when that might be possible? 

Mr. WALKER. The timeframes that I am talking about, Mr. 

Chairman, really envision that you would be occupying within 

those timeframes—in other words, December 2006 to March 2007, 

and March 2007 for the House and Senate expansion space. We are 

not quite as optimistic as the Architect of the Capitol, based on 

past experience. 

Senator ALLARD. Do you think he has reason, Mr. Hantman, or 

Mr. Hixon for his projections? Or do you feel comfortable with what 

you are telling us here today? 

Mr. HANTMAN. Mr. Chairman, the things that Mr. Walker talked 

to specifically that may not be ready in our September timeframe 

that we are working to have ready, he mentioned security features, 

for instance. We are working with the Capitol Police who have a 

responsibility to install their cameras inside conduit that we provide for them, so we need to make sure that they are fully integrated into our schedule, so that those comments could be there. 

But in reality, if they don’t make that date, we have Capitol Police 

officers who could be there, and be providing the security in any 

event. So it’s a question of evaluating, at that point, what level of 

security we do have, and is it adequate for the public to come in. 

Another thing that I think Mr. Walker was referring to was a 

contract that we have not let yet, we have an obligation plan—from 

March of this year—which gave us some funding, and it’s not been 

authorized for us yet, on signage, to design and put in way finding 

signage. 

So the issue there is if—we assume given the appropriations, the 

authority to award that way finding sign program—that perhaps 

we won’t need temporary signage that would otherwise go up. So, 

it’s that kind of finishing element that we are talking about. 
22 

In terms of the basic facility, in terms of operations, in terms of 

mechanical systems, in terms of security systems, the air-conditioning, the electrical, the lighting, all of those things, all of the architectural finishes are on our integrated schedule, and show a 

completion date in September. Clearly one of the big issues which 

you indicated in your opening remarks, and we’ll talk about later 

on, is the whole operations issue. What staff would be there to welcome people, what kind of programs would be in place, and how the 

staff essentially would work, that is another issue. 

Senator ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I noticed you are taking notes, 

do you have more questions? 

COST IMPLICATIONS

Senator COCHRAN. I don’t want to get in way over my head, because I know everybody has more experience in this project than 

I do, but I am interested in trying to figure out exactly what the 

impact on the appropriations process—some of these changes that 

have recently been discovered, and the cost implications of 

changes—what that’s going to have on the appropriations schedule, 

and whether or not the request submitted for this fiscal year is 

adequate to really meet the needs. I don’t want us to be a part of 

the problem, this is another thing I want to make clear. Does the 

appropriation of funds, in your view, have an impact on your ability to efficiently manage the work and complete the contract, Mr. 

Hantman? 

Mr. HANTMAN. Well, first of all, Senator, I want to thank you for 

signing our March obligation plan. The Senate has signed off on 

that, which does impact the way finding and other issues, and we 

are waiting on the House for their signoff right now. But clearly, 

the ability to award the expansion spaces, that was delayed somewhat. When we submit an obligation plan we have the responsibility of giving you adequate information to know what it’s all 

about and what kind of timing there is so that you can effectively 

react, and not be impacting the project. That’s our responsibility to 

give that to you, and we still have this issue on the operations side. 

One of the things that we are discussing right now is the effective 

opening date, and clearly that opening date impacts the cost for 

personnel—how many people you have on board and need to have 

on board that time whether it’s September or another time—will 

depend upon, again, when the opening date is. So that will be an 

appropriations related issue. 

But in general, the requests that we have made in the budget for 

this year, the $36.9 million, in our view makes us whole without 

the risks that the GAO is talking about. 

Senator COCHRAN. I want to ask Mr. Walker the same question. 

Mr. WALKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It’s my understanding 

that the $36.9 million is based on estimated total costs of $517 million. Our current estimate is $522 million, without risks and uncertainties, and with risks and uncertainties, potentially as high as 

$559 million. So I think clearly there are appropriations issues 

here that I think need to be monitored closely. 

Furthermore, it’s my understanding that there are limited reserves still available for the AOC and that obviously Congress has 

to approve certain reprogramming requests and I think, you know, 
23 

that there could be issues coming up in the interim, even if this 

total amount of money is allocated, the need for certain reprogramming requests in the interim that the Congress would have to deal 

with. Terry, did you have anything else that you wanted to add to 

that? 

Mr. DORN. We’re concerned for the balance of fiscal year 2005, that there may be not much more than, say, $1 million or so left, 

assuming that their temporary estimates are accurate, to get to the 

balance of 2005 unless there’s some reprogramming done, moving 

money around between different accounts. Like Mr. Walker said, I’m concerned in 2006 that the $36.9 million that you all would appropriate would not cover any risk and 

uncertainties so that according to the assessment that we did, that 

$36.9 million would not be sufficient for 2006. 

FISCAL YEAR 2006 BUDGET REQUEST

Senator COCHRAN. Do you have another number in mind that 

you would include as a request of the Congress if you were responsible for submitting a budget request? 

Mr. DORN. Back in November when we did our last cost-to-complete estimate we estimated that there would be additional, I believe it was $42 million or so, up to that amount, could be needed 

for risks and uncertainties. We recommended at that time that that 

money be set aside in something like a reserve account that you 

all could control, but you could give to the AOC as they really 

proved that they needed it. We were reluctant to recommend that 

that full amount be appropriated all at once. 

Senator COCHRAN. Well, I don’t think you ought to put the Appropriations Committee in the management of this project. Do you 

really believe that we should be assuming more responsibility in 

the fiscal management of the contract? 

Mr. WALKER. I don’t think you should be getting involved in that 

level of detail, Mr. Chairman. I think, my understanding as I understand the numbers that we have been dealing with and the 

AOC has been dealing with—at a minimum there’s a $5 million difference between what we say is going to be needed, and what they 

are estimating. We are saying $522 million and they are saying 

$517 million. So that would be a $5 million difference between—— 

Senator COCHRAN. That’s kind of a guess, too, I mean, we all realize those are guesses. You’re using facts and understanding and 

knowledge and experience and judgment and everything else. But 

there’s no way to be certain at this point. But our responsibility is 

to appropriate money on an annual basis, and so what I’m hoping 

to learn at this hearing, in addition to whatever else you think we 

need to know, is whether or not the fiscal year 2006 budget request 

is sufficient to meet the needs for the project. And if we appropriate that amount, it would be a positive contribution to the appropriate management of the contract. If we underfund it, we have 

got to expect problems. That’s my question. Have we asked for 

enough money in this next fiscal year, in your opinion? 

Mr. WALKER. And my answer is, Mr. Chairman, I think you 

should consider appropriating an additional $5 million. Obviously 

if it turns out these risks and uncertainties manifest themselves, 

and if it turns out that the project does take longer than what the 
24 

AOC estimates, then you’d be getting into fiscal 2007, and there 

might be enough lead time to be able to consider that as part of 

the fiscal 2007 budget requests, or other supplemental actions at 

a later date. 

Senator COCHRAN. Okay, thank you. 

Senator ALLARD. Senator Durbin. 

WORKER SAFETY

Senator DURBIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Hantman, several years ago when I first came to this subcommittee, we had a long discussion about worker safety, and my 

concern about the Architect of the Capitol’s office, and the fact that 

the accident and injury rate among employees in your office was 

way above the average for Federal agencies, dramatically. And 

after some discussion we brought in outside consultants that have 

dramatically improved those numbers, and that’s why I was really 

stunned to read the report from the GAO about safety at the CVC 

work site. This appears to be one of the most dangerous work sites 

in Washington, and I don’t know why. 

If I read this correctly, and I’m anxious to hear a response to it, 

the reports that you have been receiving, the progress reports have 

been giving inaccurate data about worker safety, including injuries, 

illnesses and lost time. The GAO analysis, and I read from the report, says that from 2003, the injury and illness rate was about 50 

percent higher than comparable construction sites and the lost time 

rate, 160 percent higher. Additionally, both the numbers in the 

rates for injuries and illnesses, and for lost time worsened from 

2003 to 2004. 

It goes on to say that neither the Architect of the Capitol nor the 

construction management contractor, which I assume is Gilbane, 

had analyzed the results of these monthly safety audits to identify 

trends or concerns. The GAO prefaced this section by saying the 

number of construction workers is soon expected to increase significantly. Why would we even want to send people into this dangerous situation? What is being done about it, and how can an 

issue, which you and I had a very public flare-up over, be allowed 

to deteriorate to this point? Is this the most dangerous construction 

site in Washington? And if so, why aren’t you embarrassed by it? 

Mr. HANTMAN. Well, first of all may I please state that your interest, and our working together over the past years have, in fact, 

as you said, really improved the working conditions at the AOC. 

We are down to basically a better record than most of our blue collar sister organizations in security and safety, and almost approaching the level for white collar organizations right now. So I 

take very seriously what we have done these past years within the 

agency itself. 

Now, in terms of monitoring the security and the safety of the 

workers on the site, this is a function that Gilbane Associates, our 

construction manager, has been tasked with, and may I ask Bob 

Hixon to talk that through. 

Mr. HIXON. Gilbane, under their contract, is required to monitor 

the safety records. They have been doing that, we have a monthly 

safety audit by one of their safety professionals who comes through 

and has done this, both for Centex and Manhattan. They will 
25 

evaluate through their site inspection and they’ll generate a report 

that tells us all of the issues that they have found with pictures, 

so that we’ve got it all documented what problems there are. 

Currently, as a result of GAO’s coming in and talking with us 

about safety for the last few months, we’ve had monthly meetings 

with both the Manhattan people—Centex is essentially off the site 

now—with Manhattan, and Gilbane and my field representatives. 

They’ve gone through all of these reports, Manhattan has responded to each item that’s noted within the report that has been 

generated by Gilbane so that they’ve responded to each one. They 

have been very conscientious about safety; this is a change from 

what we had going on in 2003 and 2004 with the sequence 1 contractor. 

SAFETY RECORDS

Senator DURBIN. Well, let me ask you, was inaccurate data given 

to the Architect of the Capitol about the number of injuries and illnesses and lost time? 

Mr. HIXON. Yes, it was, there was inaccurate information provided by Centex to Gilbane, and they conveyed that information to 

us. There were some 16 accidents that were never reported, there 

was also a difference of opinion in how to account for lost time or 

light duty if someone was injured and came back and performed 

light duty. Effective in 2003, OSHA changed the requirements to 

require that that be reported as lost time as well; it was not being 

recorded that way. 

Senator DURBIN. Is the GAO accurate in saying that the injuries 

and illnesses at the CVC site were 50 percent higher than comparable construction sites, and the lost time rate 160 percent higher and increasing from the year 2003 to 2004, is that accurate? 

Mr. HIXON. That is accurate. 

Senator DURBIN. And this did not come to the attention of either 

Gilbane or the Architect of the Capitol? 

Mr. HIXON. We were not aware that the situation was as bad as 

it has been until recently when the Government Accountability Office went directly to the sequence 1 contractor to get their safety 

records. The data was differing from the data that had been transmitted to Gilbane. 

Senator DURBIN. So who dropped the ball here, did Gilbane drop 

the ball? Or your office? 

Mr. HIXON. I believe it’s the sequence 1 contractor failed to report accurately the safety information to Gilbane, who was collecting the data from both Centex and Manhattan, and reporting 

it to us. I don’t think there was an intention there, I think they 

had incomplete information. 

Senator DURBIN. That dramatically? I mean, that big a difference? 

Mr. HIXON. Well, there are two issues. One of them is the 16 or 

so accidents that the Gilbane people had never received an accident 

report for these individuals, they knew nothing about it. The other 

aspect of it is this lost time, the calculation of lost time where the 

calculation was done inaccurately. 
26 

INCREASED INSURANCE COSTS

Senator DURBIN. So, aside from the personal loss to the victim 

of the accident, has this added to the cost of the project, the fact 

that it’s a dangerous work site? 

Mr. HIXON. It would have probably added to the insurance cost 

of the construction contractor, it should not have added to the Government’s cost for the project. 

Senator DURBIN. So, when we talk about the increased costs of 

the Capitol Visitor Center, you’re saying that those increased insurance costs were not passed on to be paid for by the taxpayers. 

Mr. HIXON. The Manhattan Construction Company has had a 

good safety record, as has Gilbane, for that matter, and those insurance rates would be good, and so they wouldn’t be excessive. 

The insurance rates under the sequence 1 contract, and particularly some of their subcontractors, when you look at the sheet, you 

can see that there were a lot of accidents by one particular subcontractor in the September/October period; their insurance rates, I 

expect, are very high. 

Senator DURBIN. And we don’t pay for their higher insurance? 

That’s not an add-on cost? 

Mr. HIXON. I suspect that their insurance cost is part of their 

overhead which is included in their bid pricing and that would 

price them out of the market compared to others. 

CONTRACTOR SAFETY RECORDS

Senator DURBIN. So now we’re going to have more construction 

workers on the scene. What have you put in place, or what will you 

put in place, to make sure that you receive accurate information 

and that Gilbane or the Architect’s Office ask the hard questions 

of the contractors about their safety records? 

Mr. HIXON. Currently every time there is an accident, I receive 

the accident report myself, it comes through to me to review. But 

monthly what we are doing, we have a meeting monthly with Manhattan, Gilbane and the AOC to review the safety inspection that 

was done by Gilbane safety professionals. They go through each 

item on that, and they are to go through each accident report to 

ensure that we identify what the cause is and eliminate that as a 

recurring problem, so it’s a very active program now. 

Senator DURBIN. The GAO thinks they’ve found a trend in these 

accidents, have you identified one? 

Mr. HIXON. No, I have not. 

The other—the trends that they have talked about is fall protection. I mean, there was one other one, but—fall protection was 

clearly an issue. One of the things they would like us to do, that 

we have not done in the past, is do some kind of a trend analysis 

based on the data; I think that’s a good idea. 

Senator DURBIN. Well, I think it sure is a good idea this far in 

the project to think about that. Mr. Walker, would you like to comment? 

Mr. WALKER. Yes, Senator Durbin. 

I think it’s important to put things into perspective. I understand 

your concern and share your concern with regard to worker safety, 

and the optics of having a site that has a much higher incidence 
27 

of accidents and lost time than would be expected, and also your 

concern about the potential additional costs that could be incurred 

to the Government as a result of that as well. 

I think it’s fair to say that there’s a shared responsibility for this 

between the contractor, between Gilbane and between the AOC, 

but I think it’s also fair to say that this was a disproportionate 

problem for the sequence 1 contractor, Centex. Centex is basically 

gone now. 

We have seen in the last several months, in 2005 the AOC paying much greater attention to this, as was mentioned by the fact 

that they are now having regular recurring meetings. 

Manhattan has a much better safety record than Centex, and I 

would hope and expect that things would be getting better from 

this point forward. The facts are what they are, but I do think it’s 

important for AOC to continue to try to act on some of the recommendations that we’ve made to minimize the possibility of having problems going forward. 

But the most recent trend based on preliminary work that we 

have done in the first quarter of 2005 is a significant improvement 

over the past. 

Senator DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, you’ve been kind enough to give 

me a little extra time here, and I just want to say that you have 

said we are going to be on top of this project and I’m glad we are 

doing this. And I hope that the regular reports relative to the 

schedule and the costs will include reports on worker safety. Maybe 

that will be an incentive for all of us to take this more seriously. 

Thank you. 

COST OVERRUNS

Senator ALLARD. I think that’s a reasonable request and hopefully we’ll be getting a report. In the last year, there’s been about 

$100 million override and there haven’t been any scope changes. 

Most of what has been justified on cost overruns have been explained by scope changes. So, I would like to have a little better 

explanation of what has happened to cause that $100 million 

growth in costs which wasn’t anticipated in the last year when 

there wasn’t any scope changes. 

Mr. HIXON. I wanted to be able to find the sheet that I had here 

that talks about some of the increases that have occurred in the 

last year, what they were for. Much of that has to do with the 

delay cost associated with the sequence 1 contractor’s late completion of his work as a consequence of the scope increases that we 

previously talked about and different site conditions. As a consequence of sequence 1 being late by 101⁄2 months, the sequence 2 

contractor, in lieu of starting in January 2004, actually commenced 

his work in November 2004, 10 months late. The costs associated 

with that delay, together with the extended period that the construction manager, AOC and the Architect will have to be on site 

is significant. That—together with several other issues, we have 

talked about the utility tunnel, there was a delay—while we looked 

at alternatives on the utility tunnel and there was a material escalation cost associated with that. There are some life safety issues 

associated with stair pressurization and damper monitoring on behalf of the fire marshal. There are some scope gaps that we have 
28 

identified as a consequence of what’s going on with the various designs between sequence 1 and sequence 2, there are some elements 

that we left out, the exhibit prices came in higher than expected, 

the House and Senate expansion spaces came in higher than expected; all of those things together add up to the total of $38.6 million that was the increase that we had in our cost-to-complete and 

that’s between last year—that was done last year in October and 

reported in November. 

Senator ALLARD. When you said higher than expected, are you 

referring to inflated costs—— 

Mr. HIXON. That’s correct, sir. Yes. Some of these elements such 

as the House and Senate—— 

Senator ALLARD. I assume it’s inflated costs of raw material? 

Mr. HIXON. We have had both because we have got steel material, for example, which has jumped up dramatically in the last 

couple of years, but in addition to that, we’ve had an inflation rate 

in the construction area, the escalation in cost, that had typically 

been running about 3.5 percent, and the estimates for the cost were 

made at about 3.5 percent per year. In reality, they were more 

than twice that. 

Senator ALLARD. Is that labor cost? 

Mr. HIXON. That would be labor and material. 

Engineering News Record is reporting it at just over 7 percent, 

I believe. So those things together with some of these other items, 

with coping with the delay costs associated with the late start, is 

what has caused the majority of the increase in costs here in the 

last year. 

Senator ALLARD. Mr. Walker? 

Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, it’s my understanding that the estimate 1 year ago was about $454 million, and as I mentioned before, estimate without risks and uncertainties is $517 million now. 

And it’s my understanding that there are two primary reasons for 

those variances in the last year. First, delay costs of about $32 million, and second, design to 

budget gaps for the Senate and House expansion spaces, as well as 

the exhibits, of $21 million, in other words, the idea that rather 

than cutting back to meet the budget, the decision was made to go 

ahead and continue to do things in accordance with the preliminary 

specifications, but it would cost $21 million more in order to be 

able to meet those preliminary specifications. 

PROJECT SCOPE CHANGES

Senator ALLARD. Thank you for that clarification. Now, Mr. 

Hantman, I understand that at the recent House Appropriations 

Committee hearing, it was suggested that some cost increases occurred because staff of the Capitol Preservation Commission were 

routinely requesting changes to the project scope. Is this true, and 

have there been any budget increases because of staff directives? 

Mr. HANTMAN. Most of the discussions that we have on our 

standard Monday afternoon meetings are issues where we are trying to resolve things in terms of the type of work that we want to 

do. For instance, we bring in fabrics and stones and say, ‘‘This is 

what we are going to be doing,’’ because when the Capitol Preservation Commission originally approved the concepts, it certainly 
29 

wasn’t down to the level of actual finishes and quality of materials. 

So those are the kinds of things that we would generally be discussing. Operations issues, we had a couple of meetings where we 

talked about, for instance, open captioning in the orientation theater. This is something that goes beyond what code really calls for, 

what the ADA really calls for in terms of people who are hearingimpaired being able to be accommodated, so we had a series of discussions on whether or not we should be requesting—I think it was 

an additional $85,000 for instance—for open captioning. So there 

was some very significant discussions on the part of the subcommittee to say that yes, this should be something that we put 

in our $4.2 million below the line types of things. So talking about 

all those below the line issues and what they want to support, has 

certainly been elements that we have discussed. In fact they are in 

our request for this year, the $36.9 million includes many of those 

issues. One of the discussions that we had at these meetings was 

the issue of seals, congressional seals that would be in the atria, 

the circular stairways of the House and Senate expansion space, 

and on the floor of the Great Hall. There’s been no real agreement 

in terms of doing that or not doing that. So we are planning, potentially, to do that in the future, if in fact we are given that clearance 

to do so. 

COST TO COMPLETE

Senator ALLARD. Now, I want to get down to the final question 

here, and I’ll address this to Mr. Walker. 

Last November you released your GAO report on an update of 

the assessment of the cost to complete the project, and when should 

the process of updating the current cost to complete take place, 

when would you suggest? 

Mr. WALKER. We do believe that it’s appropriate to do a new cost 

to complete, and it should be done subsequent to the AOC’s current 

completion of its integrated scheduling efforts. We think once that’s 

agreed, I’m sure you are going to want us to take a look at that 

and provide our comments back to the Congress, we think it’s appropriate at that point in time to come up with another estimate. 

Senator ALLARD. Mr. Hantman, when do you think you are going 

to have your schedule so that he can move ahead with his cost update? 

Mr. HANTMAN. As Mr. Walker indicated, we had given a GAO 

top-level schedule overview, what we need to do is have his staff 

sit down with our staff, review in detail what we have in a lot more 

detail than what we showed you today, and see what level of comfort they have and what kind of questions they would want to 

raise. I would think that certainly by the next hearing we will have 

met and discussed that and GAO can develop their own thoughts. 

Senator ALLARD. Can you give us some date at that point in time 

when it would be practical to go ahead with a cost-to-complete update? 

Mr. HANTMAN. Yes. 

Senator ALLARD. Okay. Mr. Chairman, do you have any more 

questions? 
30 

SECURITY CONCERNS

Senator COCHRAN. Mr. Chairman, I just have one other question 

and it’s mainly to clarify one of the real purposes of this entire 

project. 

There’s been some considerable pressure from the House side in 

particular, most recently during our conference on the supplemental appropriations and we were meeting to discuss differences 

in the House and Senate-passed supplemental bills, for there to be 

more included in this project than has been designed now for working spaces for Members of Congress, committee meeting rooms, 

other offices, accommodating the needs for more space for congressional activities. And it occurred to me that there may be some who 

are not appreciating the fact that much of the space that’s being 

occupied by this visitor center is for the purpose of moving the perimeter and the distance between the actual working spaces of the 

Capitol and the Congress out to a point where it’s less likely that 

someone who intends to do harm to the Capitol or to the Congress 

could get close access to the Congress and during its working days, 

moving the perimeter out beyond where it is now so that a truck 

making a delivery, or visitors coming to see the Capitol are actually 

screened or inspected, as the case may be with a truck, at a far 

distant location, rather as now, or as previously in the past, right 

up against the Capitol. Or as someone is entering the Capitol, we 

have the screening devices inside the Capitol, as a matter of fact, 

for visitors. 

And so if we filled up all the space between what is now the Capitol and what the perimeter is going to be with meeting rooms and 

activities and have the Congress working in a larger area, one of 

the purposes of having the new perimeter extended would be defeated. Is that something that is a factor in the decision to extend 

to far distant locations the opportunity to screen and to inspect 

those who are coming in or making delivers to the Capitol? Mr. 

Hantman and then I’ll ask Mr. Walker to respond as well. 

Mr. HANTMAN. Mr. Chairman, you certainly have hit upon and 

reiterated one of the primary rationales for doing the visitor center 

in the first place. I think everybody recalls that the first increment 

of dollars, $100 million was appropriated directly after the two police officers were murdered in July 1998. Within 4 months, we had 

essentially the start-up money to begin the re-design and to move 

ahead with the project. As for the rest of the money, the first increments of it came after 9/11, so security clearly is the driver on this 

project. 

The perimeter security program that we’re putting in place, that 

is in place right now, on Capitol Square, for instance, is really a 

vehicle interdiction type of program. We’re out basically at streets, 

on First Street on the west side as well, and along the drives on 

the House and the Senate side as well, giving us hundreds of feet 

of stand-off from the building itself for any vehicle that would in 

fact want to come here. The idea of off-site inspection is making 

sure that vehicles are checked a greater distance away. That they 

have x amount of time to come to the building, and see that their 

tags are intact so nothing could have been added to it before they 

would even go into what is our new truck dock, three stories below 
31 

the visitors center. This is certainly part and parcel of that whole 

philosophy of making sure vehicular traffic is controlled. 

As far as pedestrian traffic is concerned, the more people that 

come through the visitor center—several hundred feet away from 

the Capitol Building itself, as opposed to coming through the dozen 

entrances that we have on the north, the south, on the east front 

of the Capitol, the safer the building will be. And I think the police 

are certainly very sensitive to that. On an administrative philosophy, it’s really going to be up to the House and Senate to determine who can still come through the north doors, the south doors. 

Clearly Members, senior staff, pre-screened visitors will be doing 

that. But the more people who come through the visitor center 

itself, 300 feet away from the Capitol building, before they enter 

the building, the safer the facility will be. 

Senator COCHRAN. Mr. Walker? 

Mr. WALKER. Senator Cochran you are correct to say that security is one of the primary reasons for creating the Capitol Visitor 

Center. I will also note there is another reason that I think we 

have to lock down what the requirements are because failure to 

lock down the requirements means that we have increased risk of 

scheduled delays and cost increases, so security is a primary factor, 

but there’s also a need to lock this down to increase the likelihood 

that we could come in on time and within budget. 

Senator COCHRAN. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

CONTRACTOR PENALTIES AND INCENTIVES

Senator ALLARD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

In the last hearing I mentioned the importance of trying to implement incentives as best we could. The sequence 1 contractor was 

10 months late. Did he receive any late charges or any fines or assessments for his tardiness in that regard? 

Mr. HIXON. The sequence 1 contractor submitted a request for a 

time extension, and documented that time extension for delays due 

to added scope and different site conditions. Those items were all 

reviewed for the contractor against the schedule and no, he did not 

get assessed any liquidated damages. The time was determined to 

be excusable and a major portion of it was compensable because it 

was under the contract, he was entitled to compensation for the 

delay. 

Senator ALLARD. Now, let’s go the other direction, did the sequence 1 contractor receive any incentives or award fees from the 

Architect of the Capitol? 

Mr. HIXON. Yes, he did. He received award fees up until the 

end—there is a portion of the budget that he had—that still remains, he did not receive the full incentive fee that he could have. 

I think there’s an amount, $250,000 or something that was not 

given to him because of his performance. 

Senator ALLARD. Okay, and maybe you could go on to some explanation of why he received those in greater detail? 

Mr. HIXON. I can’t at this time, I wasn’t here for the first few 

award fees that were handed out. The last one that he did, we 

changed it to milestone dates. He received three out of five—he 

achieved three out of five milestones—two of those related to the 
32 

plaza, having his work done on the plaza so the sequence 2 contractor could be completed. He achieved those, and received his incentive for meeting his milestone dates. The other one was the 

service level, he achieved completion on that area on schedule, too. 

This was done differently than the way the incentive fee was set 

up originally and differently from the way we are doing Manhattan’s incentive fee. We actually set milestone dates and said if you 

achieve that milestone date, you will receive your compensation, if 

you don’t, you will not. 

CONTRACTOR VARIANCES

Senator ALLARD. So we are handling the sequence 2 contract differently than the sequence 1? 

Mr. HIXON. We are doing sequence 2 the way the first part of sequence 1 was done, which has to do with quality management, time 

management, a whole lot of issues. And since I wasn’t here during 

that period of time, I’m not sure what the conversation was. I can 

tell you that for sequence 2 schedule management, all of those 

things were evaluated. There are monitors in the construction manager’s office that monitor every month, it’s a very rigorous process. 

We have graded them in their first evaluation period which was 

from the beginning that they were awarded the contract, up at the 

end of February and determined that their performance is excellent 

but at the low end, so they received approximately 91 percent of 

the $150,000 that was available in their first award fee. We feel 

they are doing a very good job. 

Senator ALLARD. Mr. Walker. 

Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, it’s my understanding that the sequence 1 contractor who was Centex did not incur any penalties 

and was paid incentive award fees of about $820,000. There are 

clearly lessons to be learned here with regard to the future design 

of contracts to be able to provide more incentives in appropriate 

circumstances, but penalties as well. I might note that the safety 

issue was an issue that, in my view, was not given adequate consideration with regard to this factor. You have heard about some 

misreporting of safety factors. We need to move in Government to 

more performance-based contracts. We need to move in Government to provide more incentives to people that are doing the right 

thing, and penalties if they don’t. I do think there are some lessons 

to be learned here but I do think things are going better with the 

sequence 2 contractor, as I’ve noted before. 

CONSTRUCTION MANAGER

Senator ALLARD. Is it true that the longer the project lasts, the 

more money the contractor makes? 

Mr. HIXON. Are you referring to the construction contractor or 

the construction managers? 

Senator ALLARD. The latter. 

Mr. HIXON. The construction manager? 

Senator ALLARD. Yes. 

Mr. HIXON. The construction manager if—he is paid for having 

a staff on site and he is paid for a given duration, and so that’s 

correct. If, in fact, his staff would stay on site for an extended period, the way the contract is developed if we wanted him here, we’d 
33 

have to pay him to continue to stay on site during that period. We 

have included that in the budget request for fiscal year 2006. 

Senator ALLARD. And are there incentives, then, for the managing contractor to move the project along? 

Mr. HIXON. There are no incentive fees associated with the construction manager contract, that contract—it’s a typical construction manager contract, a professional services contract, and it does 

not have incentive fees in it, nor does the Architect’s. 

Senator ALLARD. And typically a construction management contract doesn’t have incentives fees? 

Mr. HIXON. Typically they have not, to date. That’s something 

that I think for the future would be a good idea. I think they ought 

to have incentive contracts in construction manager contracts. I 

think they ought to have them in A&E contracts as well, so that 

if they do perform and they collaborate well together, that they will 

derive a benefit, there is an incentive for them to do so. 

MAJOR MILESTONES

Senator ALLARD. Thank you. Now, finally, to get us ready for the 

next hearing, what major milestones do you expect to complete in 

the next 4 weeks? Mr. Hantman or Mr. Hixon? 

Mr. HIXON. The major milestones that we have going on 

schedulewise as far as work itself are, we should be seeing that the 

stone work is really going well in the Great Hall, that that work 

should be going on. But more importantly, from a project perspective, as we had the opportunity now because of the expansion space 

awards and the exhibit construction, to finalize those elements and 

refine even further the schedule and these other activities that 

need to be done in conjunction with the move in to the building. 

We have kind of turned the corner now, and we’re kind of focused 

less on just trying to get the work underway, but more on looking 

at how we need to complete the work in order to be successful with 

such issues as the Capitol Police and their security requirements, 

things of that nature. Those are the kinds of issues that in the next 

4 weeks we ought to have some closure on. 

Mr. HANTMAN. But one of the things that Bob alluded to, Mr. 

Chairman, certainly is the stone work. The stone work is basically 

complete in the kitchen area at this point in time. They are starting to move out to the Great Hall. And that’s really the critical 

path of the job with the volume of stone that we have, so monitoring that, making sure that those starts occur when those starts 

need to occur, and the number of crews that are important to keep 

that flowing is, in fact, coming in, so that’s again the critical path 

of the project. 

Senator ALLARD. I was hoping we could get a little more specific 

response to that question. Could you get a response to that question within the next 10 days, if that gives you enough time? 

Mr. HANTMAN. Yes. 

CLOSING REMARKS

Senator ALLARD. I don’t have any other questions to follow up on, 

Mr. Chairman, do you have anything? 

Senator COCHRAN. No, I don’t. 
34 

Senator ALLARD. I want to thank you both for taking the time 

to keep us informed on how the project is going. I appreciate both 

of you. I think you’re professional and we appreciate your hard 

work and dedication to the effort and taking time to come and 

share with us your views on how the project is going. And I would 

like to thank the chairman of the full committee, Senator Cochran, 

for his special interest with everything that’s going on. 

SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

We will see you next month like I indicated. We want to make 

this a monthly event and help keep ourselves informed as to what 

is happening. I would like to meet again on June 14 and we’ll have 

it scheduled the same time, same place if that works for you, Mr. 

Hantman. 

Mr. HANTMAN. Yes, sir. 

Senator ALLARD. Okay. And with that, the subcommittee stands 

in recess until that time. 

[Whereupon at 11:45 a.m., Tuesday, May 17, the subcommittee 

was recessed to reconvene subject to the call of the Chair.] 
(35) 

PROGRESS OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE 

CAPITOL VISITOR CENTER 

TUESDAY, JUNE 14, 2005 

U.S. SENATE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH, 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met at 10:36 a.m., in room SD–138, Dirksen 

Senate Office Building, Hon. Wayne Allard (chairman) presiding. 

Present: Senators Allard and Durbin. 

STATEMENT OF ALAN M. HANTMAN, FAIA, ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL 

ACCOMPANIED BY BOB HIXON, PROJECT MANAGER, CAPITOL VISITOR 

CENTER, ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR WAYNE ALLARD

Senator ALLARD. The subcommittee will come to order. We meet 

today to take testimony on the progress of the Capitol Visitor Center (CVC). We will hear from the Architect of the Capitol Alan 

Hantman, CVC Project Manager Bob Hixon, and Bernard Ungar 

and Terrell Dorn of the Government Accountability Office (GAO). 

This is our second hearing on the progress of the CVC and I intend to continue holding monthly hearings. Our third hearing will 

be the same time and place, 1 month from today, July 14. 

In the last hearing the Architect reported that it had just received a fully integrated schedule from its construction management contractor. Mr. Hantman, you indicated you stood firmly behind the September 15, 2006, completion date for construction. 

Specifically, you said: ‘‘We believe the whole visitor experience with 

all the areas that are under contract as of now will be ready for 

them in September.’’ 

In the last month, the contract for the exhibition galleries has 

been awarded and progress has been made in a number of areas. 

But there have been problems, too, including work in the utility 

tunnel, which is 5 months behind. Moreover, there continues to be 

a need for schedule management to be given top, ongoing priority 

attention, and AOC needs to develop a risk mitigation plan. 

We look forward to a robust discussion today, and particularly 

look forward to recommendations from our witnesses on the fiscal 

year 2006 budget as we will take up the 2006 legislative branch 

bill in committee next week. 

I am heartened by the response that we have had since our last 

hearing to many of the areas and I appreciate the diligence and ef-
36 

fort in that regard. So I do not want the fact that we are making 

headway to be overshadowed by some of the questions that we may 

focus on today. But we are trying to make sure that we can keep 

things moving forward according to schedule and holding down our 

costs as much as possible. 

So why do we not go ahead now and I will recognize you, Mr. 

Hantman, to proceed. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF THE ARCHITECT

Mr. HANTMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning. I am 

pleased to be here to discuss the progress we have made on the 

CVC since our last May 17 hearing. 

Since I last testified, we have accomplished a number of tasks. 

Before I get into the details, though, I’d like to update you on the 

safety issues that were discussed at our last meeting. Recently the 

Occupational Safety and Health Administration, OSHA, made an 

unannounced comprehensive inspection of our work site. That was 

on May 24. They were satisfied with the work Manhattan was 

doing, its emphasis on worker safety, and they identified no significant issues to address. No citations were issued. 

Mr. Chairman, my office is dedicated to providing a safe, healthy, 

and secure environment for all who work in the Capitol complex 

and millions of visitors who come there every year, and the CVC 

work site is no exception. Additional steps have been made to assure that this is in fact the case. 

INTERIOR CONSTRUCTION PROGRESS

Mr. Chairman, with the recent implementation of the fully integrated schedule that you mentioned we have been closely monitoring the activities of our contractors. Since our last meeting, 

much progress has been made inside the visitor center. Contractors 

continue to install mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems, 

erect masonry block work, place concrete, and install finished stone 

work. In fact, stone installation in the food service area has been 

completed ahead of schedule. 

This is a recent photograph, Mr. Chairman, that shows all of the 

stone work that we have in. This is one of the areas on the House 

side where secure dining could be had. There will be doors in this 

opening. You can see that in areas where the block work is we 

have the base in, and all of this base will have plaster going on in 

top of that. 

Block work in the congressional auditorium is almost complete 

and soon stone installation will begin in this area. You can see that 

there’s a lot of block work, Mr. Chairman. When we walked 

through it last time there was nothing up over here. These are the 

emergency egress corridors, up above the areas that will allow people to come safely from the front of the auditorium out to the side 

ramp area. You can see that the block work is proceeding apace 

over here. 

In addition, crews have completed all concrete placements in the 

exhibit gallery. The stone installation on the walls and columns inside the great hall is progressing very well. The schedule for some 

wall stone installation activities are being slightly revised to accommodate design or construction issues as they’re encountered so 
37 

that the contractor can complete the wall stone installation in the 

great hall in August as planned. 

This is the rendering that we had showed you last time, Mr. 

Chairman, and this was the photograph looking through one of the 

skylights at the dome. The next two boards show you the actual 

progress that we have been making since then. 

This is down on the House side. You can see the stone work 

being installed over here and on the orientation side of the wall as 

well. 

The next rendering, the next photograph, shows the area down 

on the Senate side. Again, all the block work is basically in. This 

is the area, Mr. Chairman, where the information booth will be on 

the Senate side, right under the skylight. 

What happens with some of this work, Mr. Chairman, is if there 

is a field condition that is found that is difficult to work on, sometimes the workers will have to work that out and at the same time 

they will go to another section of the great hall or other areas to 

continue laying stone. That is the policy that we have been following and Manhattan certainly has the flexibility to do that. 

EXTERIOR CONSTRUCTION PROGRESS

Above ground, exterior stone work is nearing completion along 

the pedestrian ramp located on the north side of the CVC entrance 

zone. If we see over here, this is what we showed you last time, 

Mr. Chairman. Here is the rendering of what the entrance area 

and the screening area will look like, with that wall along the 

right. You can see this worker was installing the stone on that 

rampway over here, and the photograph beneath this shows that 

we have very good progress. Most of the stone work is installed on 

the Senate side ramp coming on down. You can see a lot of the 

stone in the foreground over here. 

We are trying to select the stone so that we can make sure that 

it blends as much as possible. There is a whole range of stone that 

is allowable in the contract and we want to make sure that there 

are no jarring contrasts over there. So that is proceeding very well. 

On the eastern half of the front plaza, workers are continuing to 

install granite pavers. All air-handling units are now on site and 

installation will continue throughout the month at the basement 

level. 

With regard to the East Capitol Street utility tunnel that you 

mentioned in your opening comments, we have experienced delays 

due to unforeseen site conditions while relocating water lines on 

First and Second Street to permit the utility tunnel installation. At 

this time the First Street work is completed. The D.C. Water and 

Sewer Authority, WASA, has shut down the water in one of the 

Second Street water lines so that the contractor can cut and cap 

an existing 30-inch water line. The contractor will then install a 

large concrete thrust block and that concrete must cure and harden 

so that work at Second Street can continue. 

This, Mr. Chairman, is a major milestone that is necessary to 

complete work in this area. The impact of this added work is a 

delay in utility tunnel construction of a number of weeks and the 

requirement for temporary dehumidification in the CVC so finish 
38 

work can continue as scheduled. This is something that we now 

have to do. 

This photograph shows the work in East Capitol Street. This entire area pretty much will be covered up very shortly, where we 

have the precast concrete elements. The biggest holdup is in Second Street right now with that 30-inch water line. 

COMPLETION SCHEDULE

Mr. Chairman, we also spoke last month about award of the contract to construct the exhibition gallery space, a key component of 

the visitor experience in the CVC. I am pleased to report that we 

have incorporated the exhibition gallery construction schedule into 

the master schedule and are working to ensure completion of the 

space in September 2006 to coincide with the completion of the visitor facilities. 

Here we see the rendering of what the Senate virtual theater 

will look like when it is completed, and here you can see the block 

work is up, ready to receive finishes now in that very area. So as 

we go through the whole visitor center, Mr. Chairman, you can see 

that the block work is really defining spaces, allowing us to begin 

the finished stone work and the plaster work in many areas. 

We also discussed the award of the House and Senate expansion 

space. That work has also been incorporated into the master schedule, which reflects a completion date of spring 2007 for that separate part of the work. 

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for this opportunity to again report 

to the subcommittee on the status of the project and I think that 

these monthly meetings are very helpful and look forward to continuing them, and I am happy to answer any questions you might 

have at this time. 

Senator ALLARD. Thank you. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ALAN M. HANTMAN, FAIA 

Mr. Chairman, Senator Durbin, members of the Committee, I am pleased to be 

here today to discuss the progress made on the Capitol Visitor Center project since 

our May 17 hearing. 

Since I last testified, we have accomplished a number of important tasks. Before 

I get into the details, I would like to update you on the safety issues that were discussed at our last meeting. Recently the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) made an unannounced inspection of our worksite. They were satisfied with the work Manhattan was doing, its emphasis on workers’ safety, and they 

identified no significant issues to address. 

Mr. Chairman, as you know, my office is dedicated to providing a safe, healthy, 

and secure environment for all who work in the Capitol complex and millions of people who visit every year—the CVC worksite is no exception. 

With the recent implementation of the fully-integrated schedule, we have been 

closely monitoring the activities of our contractors. Since our last meeting, much 

progress has been made inside the Visitor Center. Contractors continue to install 

mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems, erect masonry block work, place concrete, and install finish stone. Stone installation in the food service area has been 

completed ahead of schedule. Block work in the Congressional Auditorium is almost 

complete and soon stone installation will begin in this area. In addition, crews have 

completed all concrete placements in the Exhibit Gallery. 

The stone installation on the walls and columns inside the Great Hall is progressing well. The schedule for some wall stone installation activities are being 

slightly revised to accommodate design or construction issues as they are encountered so that the contractor can complete the wall stone installation in the Great 

Hall in August as planned. 
39 

Above ground, exterior wall stonework is nearing completion along the pedestrian 

ramp located on the north side of the CVC entrance zone. On the eastern half of 

the East Front Plaza, workers continue to install granite pavers. All air handling 

units are now on-site and installation will continue throughout the month at the 

basement level. 

With regard to the East Capitol Street Utility Tunnel, we have experienced delays 

due to unforeseen site conditions while relocating waterlines on First and Second 

Streets to permit the utility tunnel installation. At this time, the First Street work 

is complete. The D.C. Water and Sewer Authority (WASA) has shut down the water 

in one of the Second Street waterlines so that the contractor can cut and cap an 

existing 30-inch waterline. The contractor will then install a large concrete thrust 

block and that concrete must cure and harden so that work at Second Street can 

continue. This is a major milestone that is necessary to complete work in this area. 

The impact of this added work is a delay in utility tunnel construction of a number 

of weeks, and the requirement for temporary dehumidification in the CVC so finish 

work can continue as scheduled (i.e. plaster, millwork, drywall). 

We also spoke last month, Mr. Chairman, about award of the contract to construct 

the Exhibition Gallery space, a key component of the visitor experience in the CVC. 

I am pleased to report that we have incorporated the Exhibition Gallery construction schedule in the Master Schedule and are working to ensure completion of this 

space in September 2006 to coincide with the completion of the visitor facilities. 

We also discussed the award of the House and Senate expansion space. That work 

has also been incorporated into the Master Schedule which reflects a completion 

date of Spring 2007 for that separate part of the work. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to again report to you and the 

Committee on the status of the CVC project. I am happy to answer any questions 

you may have at this time. 

STATEMENT OF BERNARD L. UNGAR, DIRECTOR, PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE, GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE 

ACCOMPANIED BY TERRELL DORN, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, PHYSICAL 

INFRASTRUCTURE, GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE 

Senator ALLARD. First of all, we would like to hear from Mr. 

Ungar with the Government Accountability Office. We look forward 

to your testimony, Mr. Ungar. 

Mr. UNGAR. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Dorn and I appreciate the opportunity to be here this morning to assist the subcommittee in its 

oversight activities of the Capitol Visitor Center. Mr. Dorn and I 

are accompanied this morning by several of our team members: 

Shirley Abel, Brad James, Maria Edelstein, John Craig, and Kris 

Trueblood, who will hopefully help bail us out when the tough 

questions come, and we know they will come. 

Our written statement addresses two issues, schedule and cost. 

We would like to focus our summary this morning on schedule, talk 

just a short bit about cost. We think schedule is the most significant issue facing the project, and there are four areas that deal 

with the schedule that we think require priority attention now and 

will require priority attention for the remainder of the project. 

SCHEDULE MANAGEMENT

The first is the need to have a good realistic schedule that conforms to good scheduling practice. This has been a longstanding 

problem with the project. It has not had a good schedule for a period of time. Last week, as we had recommended, AOC and its contractors had provided an updated schedule that they believe addresses many of the concerns that we had previously raised. The 

schedule has over 4,000 activities, so we have not had a chance to 

review it and evaluate it in depth. 
40 

Our superficial look, though, does indicate that it does have a 

number of improvements. There are a number of concerns that we 

have. We intend to more fully evaluate this schedule in time for 

the subcommittee’s next oversight hearing in July. Also, during the 

summer we plan to update the risk assessment of the schedule that 

we had completed last year. 

In terms of the schedule and how realistic it is, we continue to 

believe at this point that the project is more likely to be substantially completed in the December 2006 to March 2007 timeframe as 

opposed to the September 2006 schedule that currently exists. One 

of the indicators of that is the extent to which AOC and its contractors meet project milestones and, as we reported in our written 

statement, for the milestones that were set between these two 

hearings AOC and its contractors met 3 of the 11 milestones for 

that period of time. 

On the one hand, AOC rightfully says that there’s plenty of time 

between now and next year for it to make up the time. On the 

other hand, it’s not a good indicator at this point. If we were responsible for the project, we would not necessarily be able to sleep 

well at night given that indicator. Time will tell how well time is 

recovered and it certainly is possible, but it’s certainly something 

to be watched in the future. 

Second and perhaps the single most important issue with respect 

to the schedule is the need to have an aggressive, effective schedule 

management program. This too has been a longstanding problem 

from our perspective. We don’t believe AOC or its construction 

management contractor has effectively and aggressively managed 

the project for the previous period. However, last week AOC and 

its major contractors unveiled a new approach to schedule management and schedule monitoring that they believe addresses many of 

the concerns that we have raised in the past. It does appear as 

though this new process, if it is effectively implemented on a sustained basis, will indeed address many of the concerns that we had. 

We still have some question about the extent to which this new 

process will sufficiently address the issue of the handling of delays, 

but we intend to monitor that very closely during the upcoming 

months. 

Another very important factor with respect to schedule management is the commitment of skilled resources to that effort, and we 

were very heartened to learn that effective yesterday Gilbane, the 

construction management contractor, assigned an individual—who 

had been temporarily assigned to the project—on a full-time basis 

to be responsible for helping to manage and oversee the schedule. 

We think that is a very positive development. 

The third problem area that we identified with respect to schedule has to do with risk management, risk planning and mitigation. 

About 2 years ago, recognizing a number of risks that existed with 

the project, we had recommended AOC begin to develop a risk mitigation plan. AOC agreed with the recommendation. However, it 

has not yet implemented that recommendation. 

The project executive has agreed to promptly begin to tackle this 

area and we think that is very important because of the types of 

risks and the severity of the problems that have occurred in the 

past and that could occur in the future. 
41 

1GAO, Capitol Visitor Center, Priority Attention Needed to Manage Schedules and Contracts, 

GAO–05–714T (Washington, D.C.: May 17, 2005). 

Finally, with respect to schedule, an item that the subcommittee 

raised in the April hearing on AOC’s fiscal year 2006 budget is an 

important item. That has to do with the need for a schedule that 

integrates both construction work and operation activities that 

need to be carried out to open the CVC to the public. To date there 

is not such a schedule. 

AOC has not been able to work on that, largely because up until 

last week it did not have the funding necessary to reengage a contractor that had been supporting AOC in the operational planning. 

Now that AOC has that money, which it received last week, the Architect has agreed to reengage the contractor and to work toward 

putting together a plan that would integrate both operations and 

construction. So we’re very pleased about that. 

PROJECT COST

Concerning the cost to complete the project, we continue to believe that it will cost more to complete the project than AOC has 

received to date and that it has requested. At this point in time we 

believe the additional cost could be as much as $37 million. Exactly 

how much of that would be needed at what point in time it is not 

clear. 

Senator ALLARD. That is $37 million additional to what we 

talked about as of the last hearing? 

Mr. UNGAR. That is correct, sir. AOC has asked for $36.9 million 

for 2006 and the $37 million is over on top of that. 

We do believe AOC may need some additional funds in 2005 because of the pace at which it is receiving sequence 2 change orders 

and some of the problems that are coming up. That remains to be 

seen. AOC does have available to it part of $10.6 million that was 

made available last year from the Capitol operations and maintenance budget. We have urged AOC to consider asking for some of 

that money sooner rather than later to make sure that it has sufficient funds between now and the end of fiscal year 2005 and given 

that it’s not exactly clear when the 2006 funds will be available to 

it. 

Mr. Chairman, that concludes our summary. We would be happy 

to answer questions. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF BERNARD L. UNGAR

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: We are pleased to be here 

today to discuss GAO’s ongoing work on the progress of the Capitol Visitor Center 

(CVC) project. As requested, we will focus our remarks today on the Architect of the 

Capitol’s (AOC) progress in achieving selected project milestones and in managing 

the project’s schedule since the Subcommittee’s May 17 hearing on the project.1 We 

will also discuss the project’s costs and funding, including the potential impact of 

schedule-related issues on the project’s costs. Our observations today are based on 

our review of schedules and financial reports for the CVC project and related 

records maintained by AOC and its construction management contractor, Gilbane 

Building Company; our observations on the progress of work at the CVC construction site; and our discussions with CVC project staff, including AOC, its construction 

management contractor, and representatives of an AOC schedule consultant, 
42 

2 A critical path is a sequence of activities in a schedule that has the longest duration. There 

is no scheduling flexibility or slack time associated with the activities. This means that a delay 

in a critical path activity will delay the entire project unless a way is found to reduce the time 

required for other activities along the critical path. A schedule may have multiple critical paths 

simultaneously, and the critical path through a project can change as the project is updated and 

the time estimated to complete the tasks changes. Currently, AOC’s schedule shows CVC’s critical path running through wall stone and East Front stonework, and also shows other work elements, such as utility tunnel and millwork, as near critical (i.e. having little slack time). 

McDonough Bolyard Peck (MBP). We did not perform an audit; rather we performed 

our work to assist Congress in conducting its oversight activities. 

In summary, AOC’s sequence 2 contractor, Manhattan Construction Company, 

has met 3 of 11 significant milestones scheduled for completion by today’s hearing. 

The sequence 2 contractor missed the other 8 milestones for several reasons, such 

as unforeseen site conditions and a design problem. AOC does not expect these 

delays to affect the CVC project’s scheduled September 2006 completion date because AOC believes that the contractor can recover the lost time. Furthermore, certain utility tunnel work is scheduled for completion about 5 months later than previously reported, but AOC does not expect this delay to postpone the project’s completion date because AOC plans to use temporary equipment that will allow the 

project to move forward but will also increase its costs. However, largely because 

of past problems and risks and uncertainties that face the project, we continue to 

believe that the project is more likely to be completed in the December 2006 to 

March 2007 time frame than in September 2006, as shown in AOC’s schedule. AOC 

and its construction management contractor have continued their efforts to address 

two of the areas we identified during the Subcommittee’s May 17 CVC hearing as 

requiring priority attention—having a realistic, acceptable schedule and aggressively monitoring and managing adherence to the schedule. But AOC has not yet 

developed risk mitigation plans or, as the Subcommittee requested, prepared a master schedule that integrates the major steps needed to complete construction with 

the steps needed to prepare for operations. Until recently, AOC did not have funding to continue contractual support it had been receiving to help plan and prepare 

for CVC operations. We continue to believe that these areas require AOC’s priority 

attention and that the project’s estimated cost at completion will be between $522 

million and $559 million, and that, as we indicated during the May 17 hearing, AOC 

will likely need as much as $37 million more than it has requested to cover risks 

and uncertainties to complete the project. We believe that most of these additional 

funds will be needed in fiscal years 2006 and 2007, although exactly how much will 

be needed at any one time is not clear. We are recommending that this fall AOC 

update its estimate of the cost to complete the project. 

Schedule Milestones and Management 

AOC and its major construction contractors have made progress since the Subcommittee’s May 17 hearing. As of May 31, the construction management contractor 

reported that the CVC project’s construction was about 65 percent complete. The sequence 1 contractor, Centex Construction Company, which was responsible for the 

project’s excavation and structural work, has continued to address punch-list items, 

such as stopping water leaks that continue to appear in perimeter walls. According 

to the construction management contractor, as of May 31, the sequence 1 contractor 

had completed almost all of the items on the punch list. AOC expects the sequence 

1 contractor to be completely done with this list and off site by June 30, although 

the contractor may have to return later to address some issues. Furthermore, the 

sequence 2 contractor, which is responsible for the mechanical, electrical, plumbing, 

and finishing work, continued to make progress in these areas, including erecting 

masonry block, placing concrete, and installing finish stone, sheetrock and plaster, 

and granite pavers. The sequence 2 contractor also continued work on the utility 

tunnel. 

As the Subcommittee requested, we worked with AOC on the selection of several 

sequence 2 milestones that the Subcommittee can use to help track the project’s 

progress from the Subcommittee’s May 17 hearing to July 31. These milestones are 

shown in appendix I and include activities on the project’s critical path, as well as 

other activities that we and AOC believe are important for the project’s timely completion.2 AOC’s sequence 2 contractor completed 3 of the 11 activities listed in appendix 1 as scheduled for completion by today. The 11 activities include certain 

stone work in the Great Hall, a portion of the masonry wall in the auditorium, and 

certain utility tunnel work. According to AOC, the delays in 8 of these activities 

were caused by a number of factors, such as unforeseen site conditions, a design 

problem, and delays in completing certain masonry work that had to be completed 

before other work could be done. AOC does not expect these delays to postpone the 
43 

project’s scheduled September 2006 completion date because it believes that the sequence 2 contractor can recover the lost time. 

Since the May 17 hearing, AOC learned that the utility tunnel, which was expected to be operational in October 2005, is not now likely to be operational until 

March 2006. According to AOC, this date slipped because of unforeseen site conditions and the need to do certain work earlier than originally anticipated. The sequence 2 contractor has indicated that the impact of this delay on the project’s 

scheduled September 2006 completion date will be mitigated by the use of temporary dehumidification equipment. However, this mitigation approach will result 

in additional costs, as explained later in this statement. Also since the May 17 hearing, AOC’s contractors have updated the project’s master schedule, and the new 

schedule shows seven paths that are critical or are within 15 days of being critical. 

For example, the updated schedule shows millwork and finishing the auditorium to 

be within 10 days and 15 days, respectively, of being critical. Having so many critical or near-critical paths complicates schedule management and increases the risk 

of problems that could lead AOC to miss its scheduled completion date. 

In our May 17 statement, we provided several observations on AOC’s management of the project’s schedules, including our view that problems in this area contributed to slippage in the project’s scheduled completion date and additional project 

costs associated with delays. We also discussed recommendations we had already 

made to AOC to enhance its schedule management. AOC had agreed with these recommendations and had generally begun to implement them, but, it still needed, in 

our view, to give priority attention to them to keep the project on track and as close 

to budget as possible. A brief discussion follows of the issues that need AOC’s priority attention and the current status of AOC’s actions to address these issues. 

Having realistic time frames for completing work and obtaining fully acceptable 

schedules from contractors.—Over the course of the project, AOC’s schedules have 

shown dates for completing tasks that project personnel themselves considered unlikely to be met. In addition, the master project schedule (prepared by AOC’s construction management contractor) that AOC was using in May 2005 did not tie all 

interrelated activities together and did not identify the resources to be applied for 

all the activities, as AOC’s contract requires. On June 10, the construction management contractor told us that it had reassessed the reasonableness of the activity durations and found that they reasonably reflected the time required to perform the 

activities. Last week, AOC provided us with a revised master schedule that the construction management contractor said (1) reflected significant improvement in the 

linkage of interrelated tasks and (2) provided sufficient information to manage the 

project’s resources. AOC said that it planned to approve and accept this schedule 

subject to several conditions. Although our initial review of this revised schedule indicates that a number of improvements have been made, we have not yet had time 

to fully evaluate it. We will have a more complete assessment for the Subcommittee 

by its next CVC oversight hearing. Furthermore, as we said during the May 17 

hearing, we continue to believe that AOC’s scheduled September 2006 completion 

date is optimistic and that the project is more likely to be done in the December 

2006 to March 2007 time frame, largely because of past problems, the risks to the 

schedule identified during our assessment of it in early 2004, and future risks and 

uncertainties facing the project. We plan to update our risk assessment for AOC’s 

revised schedule and have our update completed in September 2005. Our update 

will include a review of activity durations. 

Aggressive monitoring and managing contractors’ adherence to the schedule, including documenting and addressing the causes of delays, and reporting accurately 

to Congress on the status of the project’s schedule.—We noted in our May 17 testimony that neither AOC nor its construction management contractor had previously 

(1) adhered to contract provisions calling for monthly progress review meetings and 

schedule updates and revisions, (2) systematically tracked and documented delays 

and their causes as they occurred or apportioned their time and costs to the appropriate parties on an ongoing basis, and (3) always accurately reported on the status 

of the project’s schedule. AOC and the construction management contractor have 

been working with the schedule consultant to develop a new, systematic process for 

tracking, analyzing, and documenting schedule progress and delays, addressing 

schedule issues, approving proposed schedule changes, and reporting on the schedule’s status. On June 7, AOC, the construction management contractor, the sequence 2 contractor, and the schedule consultant conducted the first monthly schedule status review session using the newly developed approach. If effectively implemented and sustained, we believe that this new approach should generally resolve 

the schedule management concerns we previously raised, although it is not yet clear 

how delays will be handled on an ongoing basis. We believe that the successful implementation of this new approach, including the effective handling of delays, de-
44 

3 In our May 17 testimony, we reported that AOC had about $700,000 remaining in its fiscal 

year 2005 funding for sequence 2 changes after deducting estimated costs for proposed changes 

it had received. 

pends heavily on the CVC project team’s continuous commitment of sufficient skilled 

resources to schedule management. On June 9, the construction management contractor told us that a project control engineer who had been assigned temporarily 

to help manage the project’s schedule would be working full time on the project 

starting June 13. We plan to closely monitor the implementation of this new approach, including the resources devoted to it, the handling of delays, and the accuracy of the information provided to Congress. 

Developing and implementing risk mitigation plans.—In the course of monitoring 

the CVC project, we have identified a number of risks and uncertainties that could 

have significant adverse effects on the project’s schedule and costs. Some of these 

risks, such as underground obstructions and unforeseen conditions, have already 

materialized and have had the anticipated adverse effects. We believe the project 

continues to face risks and uncertainties, such as unforeseen conditions associated 

with the project’s remaining tunnels and other work, scope gaps or other problems 

associated with the segmentation of the project between two major contractors, and 

shortages in the supply of stone and skilled stone workers. Although we have recommended that AOC develop and implement risk mitigation plans for these types 

of risks and uncertainties, AOC has not yet done so. AOC has agreed, however, to 

begin to do this shortly, and, according to AOC’s CVC project executive, is exploring 

possible approaches. 

Preparing a master schedule that integrates the major steps needed to complete 

CVC construction and the steps necessary to prepare for operations.—A number of 

activities, such as hiring and training staff, procuring supplies and services, and developing policies and procedures, need to be planned and carried out on a timely 

basis for CVC to open to the public when construction is complete. Although AOC 

has started to plan and prepare for CVC operations, as we indicated in our May 

17 testimony, it has not yet developed a schedule that integrates the construction 

activities with those activities necessary to prepare for operations. The Subcommittee requested such a schedule during its April 13, 2005, hearing on AOC’s 

fiscal year 2006 budget request. Because of a lack of funds, AOC had not been able 

to extend the work of a contractor that had been helping it plan and prepare for 

operations. Last week, AOC received the funding needed to re-engage this contractor, and AOC said that it would be working with the contractor to continue 

planning and preparing for CVC operations. 

Project Costs and Funding 

As we said during the Subcommittee’s May 17 hearing, we estimate that the cost 

to complete the construction of the CVC project, including proposed revisions to its 

scope, will range from about $522 million without provision for risks and uncertainties to about $559 million with provision for risks and uncertainties. As of June 10, 

2005, about $483.7 million had been provided for CVC construction. In its fiscal year 

2006 budget request, AOC asked Congress for an additional $36.9 million for CVC 

construction. AOC believes this amount will be sufficient to complete construction 

and, if approved, will bring the total funding provided for the project’s construction 

to $520.6 million. Adding $1.7 million to this amount for additional work related 

to the air filtration system that we believe will likely be necessary brings the total 

funding needed to slightly more than the previously cited $522 million. AOC believes that it could obtain this $1.7 million, if needed, from the Department of Defense. AOC’s $36.9 million budget request includes $4.2 million for potential additions to the project’s scope (e.g. congressional seals, an orientation film, and storage 

space for backpacks) that Congress will have to consider when deciding on AOC’s 

fiscal year 2006 CVC budget request. 

AOC has not asked Congress for the additional $37 million ($559 million minus 

$522 million) that we believe will likely be needed to address the risks and uncertainties that continue to face the project. These include, but are not limited to, 

shortages in the supply of stone and skilled stone workers, unforeseen conditions, 

scope gaps, further delays, possible additional requirements or time for life safety 

or security changes and commissioning, unknown operator requirements, and contractor coordination issues. These types of problems have been occurring, and as of 

June 1, 2005, AOC had received proposed sequence 2 change orders with costs estimated to exceed the funding available in fiscal year 2005 for sequence 2 changes 

by about $400,000.3 AOC plans to help cover this potential shortfall by requesting 

approval from the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations to reprogram 

funds from other project elements that it does not believe will be needed for those 
45 

4Public Law 108–447, enacted in December 2004, provided that up to $10.6 million could be 

so transferred upon the approval of the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations. In 

March 2005, AOC requested that about $4 million of these funds be transferred to CVC, including some funds for construction-related work, such as design of the gift shop space. As of June 

10, AOC had received approval to use about $2.8 million of this $10.6 million. None of the $10.6 

million was included in the $483.7 million above. 5 AOC plans to fund anticipated additional costs for the House connector tunnel, the Jefferson 

Building connection to the Library of Congress tunnel, and certain security-related work by requesting approval to reprogram about $1.6 million from sequence 1 construction and the East 

Front Interface to these project elements. 

elements. AOC can also request approval from these Committees to use part of 

$10.6 million that Congress approved for transfer to the CVC project from funds appropriated for Capitol Buildings operations and maintenance.4

For several reasons, we believe that AOC may need additional funds for CVC construction in the next several months. These reasons include the pace at which AOC 

is receiving proposed change orders for sequence 2, the problems it is encountering 

and likely to encounter in finishing the project, and the uncertainties associated 

with how much AOC may have to pay for sequence 2 delays as well as when AOC 

will have fiscal year 2006 funds available to it. For example, AOC is likely to incur 

additional costs for dehumidification if the expected delay in the utility tunnel cannot be mitigated or AOC has to obtain temporary equipment to provide steam and 

chilled water to CVC. AOC may be able to meet this need as well as the other already identified needs by additional reprogramming of funds and by obtaining approval to use some of the previously discussed $10.6 million.5 However, these funds 

may not be sufficient to address the risks and uncertainties that may materialize 

from later this fiscal year through fiscal year 2007. Thus, while AOC may not need 

all of the remaining $37 million we have suggested be allowed for risks and uncertainties, we believe AOC is likely to need more funds in fiscal years 2006 and 2007 

than it has already received and has requested to complete the construction of 

CVC’s currently approved scope, although the exact amount and timing are not 

clear at this time. Effective implementation of our recommendations, including risk 

mitigation, could reduce AOC’s funding needs. 

Recommendation for Executive Action 

Given the development of a new project schedule, the pace at which sequence 2 

change orders are being proposed, and the risks and uncertainties that continue to 

face the project, we recommend that, in the September to November 2005 time 

frame, the Architect of the Capitol update the estimated cost to complete the project. 

We believe that such information will be useful to Congress as it considers AOC’s 

budget request for fiscal year 2007 as well as any other requests AOC may make 

for CVC funding. We expect to have our risk assessment of AOC’s new project 

schedule done in September and believe that the information developed during this 

assessment will be important in estimating future costs. In addition, we believe that 

AOC will have more information on the possible costs of sequence 2 delays by that 

time. AOC has agreed to do this update. 

Mr. Chairman, this completes our prepared statement. We would be happy to answer questions that you or other Subcommittee Members may have. 

APPENDIX I.—CAPITOL VISITOR CENTER CRITICAL CONSTRUCTION MILESTONES, MAY 2005-JULY 

2005 

Activity Location Scheduled 

completion 

Actual completion 

Wall Stone Area 1 ............................................................................... Great Hall 1 2 ............... 5/11/05 6/06/05 

Scheduled for completion between 5/17/05 and 6/14/05: 

Wall Stone Area 3 Base Support ............................................... Great Hall 1 .................. 5/20/05 5/20/05 

Wall Stone Layout Area 4 .......................................................... Great Hall ..................... 5/20/05 6/06/05 

Saw Cut Road at 2nd Street ..................................................... Utility Tunnel 1 ............. 5/24/05 ....................

Wall Stone Area 4 Base Support ............................................... Great Hall 1 .................. 5/27/05 ....................

Wall Stone Layout Area 5 .......................................................... Great Hall ..................... 5/27/05 5/27/05 

Masonry Wall Lower Level East ................................................. Cong. Auditorium ......... 6/03/05 5/25/05 

Wall Stone Area 5 Base Support ............................................... Great Hall 1 .................. 6/06/05 6/09/05 

Wall Stone Layout Area 6 .......................................................... Great Hall ..................... 6/06/05 ....................

Drill/Set Soldier Piles at 2nd Street .......................................... Utility Tunnel 1 ............. 6/08/05 ....................

Wall Stone Area 6 Base Support ............................................... Great Hall 1 .................. 6/13/05 ....................

Scheduled for completion between 6/15/05 and 7/31/05: 

Wall Stone Layout Area 8 .......................................................... Great Hall ..................... 6/20/05 ....................
46 

APPENDIX I.—CAPITOL VISITOR CENTER CRITICAL CONSTRUCTION MILESTONES, MAY 2005-JULY 

2005—Continued 

Activity Location Scheduled 

completion 

Actual completion 

Masonry Wall .............................................................................. Orientation Theater ...... 6/24/05 ....................

Wall Stone Layout Area 9 .......................................................... Great Hall ..................... 6/24/05 ....................

Wall Stone Area 9 Base Support ............................................... Great Hall 1 .................. 7/05/05 ....................

Wall Stone Installation Area 2 ................................................... Great Hall ..................... 7/06/05 ....................

Wall Stone Installation Area 3 ................................................... Great Hall ..................... 7/06/05 ....................

Wall Stone Installation Area 4 ................................................... Great Hall ..................... 7/15/05 ....................

Wall Stone Area 9 Base ............................................................. Great Hall 1 .................. 7/15/05 ....................

Excavate/shore Station 0–1 ....................................................... Utility Tunnel 1 ............. 7/21/05 ....................

Concrete Working Slab 2nd Street ............................................. Utility Tunnel 1 ............. 7/26/05 ....................

Waterproof Working Slab Station 0–1 ....................................... Utility Tunnel 1 ............. 7/29/05 ....................

1 These activities are critical. 

2 This activity was scheduled for completion by the Subcommittee’s May 17 hearing but was not done as of that date. 

Source: AOC’s April 2005 CVC sequence 2 construction schedule for the scheduled completion dates and AOC and its construction manage- ment contractor for the actual completion dates. 

Note: Actual completion information was obtained on June 9, and AOC did not expect that the wall stone area 6 base-support work in the 

Great Hall would be done by June 13; it is now expected to be done after June 14. 

MILESTONE COMPLETION

Senator ALLARD. I want to thank both of you for your testimony. 

We have two other individuals at the table. Mr. Dorn is here 

with the GAO, and Mr. Hixon is the CVC Project Executive with 

the Architect of the Capitol. 

First question I will direct to Mr. Hantman. GAO’s testimony indicates only 3 of 11 significant milestones scheduled for completion 

at this time by the sequence 2 contractor have actually been completed. Did this occur because of more diligence on the part of the 

contractor or because the schedule was just entirely too optimistic? 

Mr. HANTMAN. Bob. 

Mr. HIXON. Sir, I will be happy to answer that question. We have 

been working with the Government Accountability Office to identify items on the critical path. The critical path has changed somewhat between the April and the May date, which created some difficulty in trying to make sure we had items we could compare both 

in April and May. 

You do note that some items have been delayed. The ones related 

to the utility tunnel, we have a real issue there that we have been 

trying to work through that has delayed us for a number of weeks. 

For the wall stone issues in the great hall, the dates have slipped 

2 to 3 weeks on some of those activities, and those are items that 

we are working on. We continue to look for ways to recover that. 

We expect that we will recover all of those and that will not be a 

problem. 

Of note, in the food service area there was concern that we were 

running behind in the food service area with stone installation, and 

in fact we were able to complete that area ahead of schedule. So 

the expectation is, provided we receive the stone in the quantities 

we need it, the installation will be able to move forward and will 

be able to be done in August, which is our date to be done for stone 

installation in the great hall. 

Senator ALLARD. So this has to do more with just a diligence 

issue and forcing things to move along as opposed to scheduling 

miscalculations? 
47 

Mr. HIXON. The schedule is the contractor’s. When he lays out 

his schedule that is his plan and his plan is changing periodically. 

We will find design issues that need to be resolved, which will 

cause them to stop installing stone in one area and move to another area. So they have some work that has progressed ahead of 

schedule in other areas, but in these areas here they are in fact 

2 to 3 weeks behind in completing that. But we expect to be able 

to complete all of the work in the area on schedule. 

SCHEDULE DELAYS

Senator ALLARD. The overall schedule, though, has slipped; is 

that correct? 

Mr. HIXON. The overall schedule, the September 15 completion 

date, if you look at the pure schedule, we had a 1-day slippage and 

we are looking to recover that 1 day. 

Senator ALLARD. Okay. What I understand is that we have had 

some dates that have been on the critical path that have been 

missed and the critical path as I understand it is that path where 

there is no leeway for error. In other words, you are down to the 

last minute practically on your schedule. You do not have any flexibility. If something unexpected happens, you begin to fall behind. 

Mr. HIXON. That is correct, sir. 

Senator ALLARD. My understanding is that you have missed 

some of the dates on that critical path. Despite that, though, you 

are still confident that we will finish on time, which would be September 15, 2006? 

Mr. HIXON. Yes, sir. The critical path indicates those items that 

must be done on time. If you miss a date we have to do something 

in the schedule, I mean with the work that is accomplished in that 

schedule, either complete work within a shorter duration than is 

reflected or resequence activities. That is part of the issue between 

the April and the May date. There is some resequencing of work 

so that the contractor is making the necessary adjustments in 

order to be able to complete the project on time. 

COMPLETION DATE

Senator ALLARD. It seems to me that the difference that we are 

getting in testimony for the date of completion between the GAO 

and the Architect’s Office is how you look at this critical path and 

the margin that you may have there and the likelihood of whether 

something will happen that will get you off your critical path. Am 

I correct in that? 

Mr. HANTMAN. I think that is a part of the story, Mr. Chairman. 

I think clearly what GAO is also recognizing over here is there are 

still potential unknowns on the project. Things that just happened 

with the thrust block for instance on East Capitol Street is something we certainly had not projected. There will be a time and a 

cost implication of something that WASA is now telling us to work 

on, that we had never projected before. 

I think in that sense—and please, Bernie, correct me if necessary—I think they are looking forward and saying there is going 

to be more of those things coming forward, which we cannot count 

in our schedule at this point in time. 
48 

But I think it is important to note, Mr. Chairman, that the September date that we are talking about was not artificially created 

and that we are not trying to cram everything in to meet that. 

Ninety-five percent of the schedules for the subcontractors were 

created by the subcontractors, taken by Manhattan and incorporated into this schedule showing that we can meet that. 

Now, clearly there are a lot of constraints, a lot of risks still 

going on, things that we are not aware of right now. The weather 

may impact us, other things. But right now, the way those pieces 

of the schedule are coming together, it still indicates that that September date is still possible. 

Senator ALLARD. Very good. I thank you for that clarification. 

SCHEDULE RISKS ASSESSMENT

Mr. Ungar, did you want to comment on that question? 

Mr. UNGAR. Yes, Mr. Chairman, we would. One of the other 

issues aside from the risks and uncertainties that we have raised 

in the past is how realistic the schedule is in itself. We have 

through our previous work found that a number of the durations 

for some of the key tasks were optimistic based on the information 

provided by the project personnel themselves. 

We identified about 12 to 15 tasks that were particularly at risk, 

such as the stone work and the fire system inspection and so forth, 

that were likely to take longer than the schedule had shown. We 

had recommended a while back that AOC reassess these activities 

to determine whether or not the durations were realistic. 

Last week Gilbane informed us that its superintendents had 

done a general evaluation of that and found the durations to generally be reasonable, but it had not yet done a detailed evaluation 

of key activities. That is the latter, the detailed evaluation, is the 

type of evaluation that we believe is really necessary to make a 

good judgment and a good determination on that. We are looking 

forward to that. 

As I mentioned, we also plan to update our risk assessment of 

the schedule during the summer. 

SCHEDULE DURATION REASSESSMENT

Senator ALLARD. The question, back to you, Mr. Hantman then, 

can you commit to providing a complete reassessment of the schedule durations by the next hearing, following up on Mr. Ungar’s 

comments? 

Mr. HIXON. We are doing a reassessment as we go along. But certainly we should be completed with that activity before the next 

hearing, yes, sir. 

TUNNEL UTILITIES

Senator ALLARD. Good, okay. Well then, we will make that part 

of our next hearing schedule. 

There have been problems with the utility tunnel, as was pointed 

out in your testimony, Mr. Hantman. 

Your view is that this is going to have little if any impact on our 

schedule? 
49 

Mr. HANTMAN. One of the things that we are discussing in fact, 

Mr. Chairman, at last night’s Preservation Commission review was 

the need, as I mentioned earlier here as well, for dehumidification 

systems to be brought in. What we are going to need to do is, in 

order to do the plaster work, to begin to bring in millwork, things 

that need humidity type of control, we are going to have to bring 

in a temporary system while the East Capitol work is completed, 

the utilities are hooked up, and then air-handling units we are installing in the basement can be made operable. 

Senator ALLARD. So it looks like you may be able to catch up on 

your schedule, but it is going to cost some extra dollars because 

bringing the dehumidification equipment in is going to add to the 

cost. 

Mr. HANTMAN. That is correct. 

COORDINATION WITH WASA

Senator ALLARD. Okay. Do you believe that the problems you are 

seeing now with the utility work could have been foreseen? 

Mr. HANTMAN. Mr. Chairman, in the past when we had major 

utilities, a major water line down Constitution Avenue with WASA 

also, it appears as if when we get into the system and we are trying to move lines and work with them, that WASA has taken this 

opportunity to upgrade their system. So in terms of the major 

thrust block and the ability for us to essentially upgrade their system in that area, this is what they are requesting of us. 

Senator ALLARD. So their attitude is, while you have that area 

open, so we do not have to come back and reopen it, let us get some 

other work done? 

Mr. HANTMAN. And they are trying to mitigate their risk as well. 

So in order to proceed we are working with them in trying to move 

ahead with as much alacrity as possible while still not degrading 

their service to the surrounding area. 

Senator ALLARD. It would have been nice if they had let us know 

ahead of time about what they were thinking of. 

Mr. HANTMAN. Basically when we get it opened up is when the 

decisions come down. 

UTILITY COSTS

Senator ALLARD. Now, what is that going to do to the cost? You 

do not have a figure on how much this is going to add to the cost 

of the project? 

Mr. HIXON. The cost of the entire utility tunnel? We have a modification in place for the utility tunnel that does not include the 

added cost for the thrust block. This was work that became apparent after we had the area excavated so that WASA could review 

where we were and what our plan was. So that is an added cost 

to us. We do not have it defined yet as far as the actual numbers. 

Senator ALLARD. So by doing this extra work tasked by WASA, 

in effect we have saved them money, but added a little bit to our 

cost. 

Mr. HIXON. Well, I think there is work here that is a different 

site condition, that as a consequence of the installation as it exists, 

WASA drawings—we were working with WASA’s drawings. The installations, especially the part on First Street, was not installed 
50 

quite like the drawings reflected, and when it was opened up there 

were corrections that needed to be made for a proper installation. 

So we are fixing some deficiencies in WASA’s system, that’s true. 

But it is also things that we could not identify until we had actually opened the lines up and could see we had a leaded joint or 

something like that. 

ADDITIONAL UTILITY WORK

Senator ALLARD. Mr. Ungar, maybe you would like to comment 

about whether you believe the utility work could have been foreseen and how you see this affecting the costs. 

Mr. UNGAR. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Dorn would like to address that 

issue. 

Mr. DORN. We do believe there could have been better coordination between AOC and WASA, for example. As Mr. Hantman just 

testified, there is a long history of problems dealing with WASA 

and making additional requirements on the Government to get 

work done in that area. So we could have probably done a better 

job in coordinating that, once again, and that would have reduced 

some of the costs we are seeing now. 

The problem now is you have a contractor on site that we are 

paying every day, so it makes it much harder to get that work done 

with the pressure of having the construction contractor waiting 

when you make these things happen. 

The other coordination issue relating to the utility tunnel that 

has not been addressed is the book tunnel which runs between the 

Supreme Court and the Library of Congress. It has always been 

known that there is a book tunnel there, but someone assumed 

that we could blow through that tunnel without affecting the security at the Supreme Court, which it turned out to have not been 

a good assumption. So again, better coordination could have reduced those costs going forward. 

As far as the cost, it is probably not appropriate because of the 

ongoing negotiations for us to get much into additional costs. 

UTILITY CONNECTIONS

Senator ALLARD. Now, when you agreed to work with the District 

and their government on this issue, was any discussion made of, 

well, look, we are doing this for you, do you want to pay in a share 

of costs on this project? Was there any of that discussion? 

Mr. HIXON. No, sir. Essentially, we are working on their line. 

This is not work they need to have done at this time. And if you 

are going to disturb the line, then you need to install it to the current standards. 

We are really at a point where if we want them to cooperate with 

us and shut the water down so we can move on to the next step, 

we are doing what we need to do to accommodate them. 

Senator ALLARD. I have known instances like this where the city 

has come in and said: Look, the contractor is doing some extra 

work on our line. While you have it open, we would like to take 

advantage to upgrade that line. We will pay a portion of that cost 

to do that. But you have never had that discussion or they were 

not willing to enter into those kind of discussions? 
51 

Mr. HIXON. We do not feel the work we are doing would be characterized as upgrading their line as much as working on it. We are 

cutting out pieces of it. There are elements of the installation that 

are not done quite the way they want. It is different from what was 

reflected on the drawings, so we are just correcting the installation. 

Yes, we are spending a little money upgrading their lines, but in 

the sense of getting their cooperation, we are just trying to get 

through this so that we can move on to the more difficult part, 

which is on Second Street. 

Senator ALLARD. I understand the situation. Thank you for your 

comments on that. 

MASTER SCHEDULE

The Architect now has a fully integrated master schedule, but it 

seems to change regularly. How can we keep track of progress if 

the baseline is changing on us? 

Mr. HIXON. The schedule that we have, the baseline that we 

have established for April, should be reasonably firm. But the contractor does have the opportunity, since it is his schedule, to resequence work. We have the opportunity to review that and make 

sure it makes sense. But it is ultimately his schedule for how he 

is going to perform the work and he could change the way he wants 

to do it as long as it makes sense and he is not doing something 

inappropriate. 

So we expect the plan to not change much, but we have to recognize he does have the opportunity to revise his schedule, subject to 

our approval. 

Senator ALLARD. That is fine. But for our accounting purposes, 

can we keep a baseline that does not change so that we have a real 

feel of what actually is happening? Because a change in baseline 

can distort it. 

Mr. HIXON. That is correct, and that is why we have established 

April as the baseline that we are managing against. If you look at 

the chart, we have got the April date on there. We will be comparing. Next month we will compare against the April baseline. It 

will be the activities that we have on a second chart that shows 

what is going to be occurring during the next month. 

Senator ALLARD. So as we move along you can provide us, as the 

schedule changes occur, with this information and then the reason 

for the change? 

Mr. HIXON. Yes, sir. 

Senator ALLARD. It would be real helpful. 

Mr. HIXON. Yes, sir. So what we are looking at right now is in 

the next month these are a selection of activities, and you can see 

it has got the May dates against the April, and then we will go to 

June dates against the April. So we will be tracking against the 

April plan. 

SAFETY ISSUES

Senator ALLARD. Let me call on Senator Durbin for, hopefully, 

comments and any questions he may have. 

Senator DURBIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank you for the 

hearing. 
52 

I would like to go directly to ask questions. I would like to ask 

first of the GAO. Centex responded to the safety issues you raised 

in last month’s testimony by writing a letter to our subcommittee. 

Their letter said that GAO’s comparison of their data to national 

averages was inaccurate and that your statement about recurring 

safety problems was not correct. I would like to give you an opportunity to respond to that letter. 

Mr. UNGAR. Yes, sir, I would be pleased to do that, Mr. Durbin. 

We believe that the information that we reported in our last testimony was correct. Centex, as you indicated, did point out that in 

its view, we should have used a different benchmark rate to compare its safety record to. 

On the one hand, we would say that reasonable people can disagree on the issue of what benchmark should be picked. However, 

in this particular instance we did not independently select the 

benchmark. The comparison that we did was based on the agreement that OSHA entered into with Centex. So we used the rate, 

the benchmark rate that Centex itself agreed to meet with OSHA. 

With respect to the rate that we used, which is the rate for nonresidential construction, and that Centex agreed to use, unfortunately the Centex or site rates were higher or the site rates were 

higher than that rate, and also the rates got worse from 2003 to 

2004. The agreement called for OSHA—excuse me—Centex to have 

an incident rate that was lower than the comparable BLS rate and 

to improve the rate by 3 percent each year. 

So in effect, using that rate, what we reported was correct. Second, if one were to use the rate that Centex proposes, it would have 

been below the BLS rate for overall incidents in 2003, but it would 

not have been below that rate for lost time incidents. Also, Centex’s 

safety rates got worse between 2003 and 2004. So Centex did not 

even meet that rate’s goal for the time period. 

Second, Centex did take issue with our report in the context that 

it did not agree that safety issues were recurring. The evidence and 

the facts basically say yes, they were. Gilbane did monthly audits. 

We analyzed the information that was identified in those monthly 

audits. It clearly showed that there were a number of problems 

that recurred. The same type of problem recurred month after 

month. 

For example, fall protection was identified as a problem in each 

of the 10 monthly reports that we reviewed from Gilbane. So was 

temporary power setup. So while Centex may have corrected an individual problem, the same type of problem in many cases kept recurring over and over again, and that is the point that we were focusing on in our statement. 

SAFETY STANDARDS

Senator DURBIN. So what you are saying is, despite Centex’s letter, you feel that the standard that was used to judge their performance on worker safety was the standard they agreed to? 

Mr. UNGAR. That is correct, sir. 

Senator DURBIN. If I understand your testimony, what you are 

saying is that, even by their own standard, what they agreed to, 

they failed to meet their own standards of worker safety on the job. 
53 

Mr. UNGAR. Centex did meet one part of that standard in 2003— 

the recordable incident rate it proposed in its letter. Centex’s rate 

was less than the BLS rate for that particular measure. However, 

it was above the BLS rate for lost time incidents, and both those 

rates, the recordable incident rate and the lost time rate, increased 

from 2003 to 2004. 

Senator DURBIN. There was some testimony at the last hearing 

about either misinformation, bad information, no information, coming from Centex to Gilbane, which was in charge of managing this 

construction, which may have led to overlooking this, the danger at 

the work site to Centex employees. Is that a fact? 

Mr. UNGAR. Sir, we really did not identify that particular issue 

in our statement. What we said was that the information on safety 

that Gilbane was reporting to AOC was incorrect, and there were 

a number of reasons for that. One of the major reasons was that 

Gilbane did not report to AOC lost time incidents that involved restricted duty or transfers. 

When we asked Gilbane about that, it had the following explanation. Number one, it said that it did not receive some individual 

accident reports on lost time incidents from Centex. Now, we do not 

know whether Gilbane did or not. On the other hand, Gilbane did 

receive a log from Centex that did identify each and every incident. 

So it was unclear to us if, given that Gilbane had the log and it 

had on the other hand a smaller number of incident reports, why 

Gilbane did not pursue that with Centex to ask, why do we have 

a different number here. 

Senator DURBIN. Was that not why Gilbane was hired? 

Mr. UNGAR. Yes, sir. 

Senator DURBIN. To go through this information and to be paid 

to manage, which means as I understand it collating information 

and data so that you meet targets and people are living under the 

terms of their contract? 

Mr. UNGAR. Yes, sir. Gilbane did have a very active safety program. On this particular issue, however, with respect to accurate 

reporting, there were a number of problems that did exist, and 

Gilbane has agreed to redouble its efforts to address those, and its 

reports for April and May were correct. 

Senator DURBIN. For the sake of the workers and for the taxpayers, I am glad to hear that. But I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, I am glad you are having these hearings and I think you are 

paying closer attention to this than many have in the past. 

I also want to tell you that if you get in a car and drive around 

Capitol Hill you see Centex’s name on everything. They are still 

around. This is not a company that has come and gone. The fact 

that they would not live up to their own worker safety standards 

and the fact that Gilbane may have been somewhat derelict in 

their own responsibilities does not give me a great amount of confidence. 

But I want to ask you, do you have any idea what the status of 

worker safety is now at the Capitol Visitor Center? 

Mr. UNGAR. Yes, sir. Mr. Dorn would like to address that. 
54 

SAFETY RECORDS

Mr. DORN. We have worked with AOC and Gilbane to address 

the factors leading into the inaccuracies. They are doing a much 

better job of reporting now. Over the first 5 months of the year, the 

year to date injury and illness rate is below the industry average. 

Gilbane does still continue to rely upon a narrower definition of 

lost time than what GAO is using and the BLS standard is, but 

I understand that they are going to make that correction in the 

next month. 

There was a lost time accident in the past month that was reported by Gilbane, which did raise the rate back up a little bit. But 

generally things are better. 

Senator DURBIN. Was there a recent OSHA assessment? Is that 

what you are referring to? 

Mr. DORN. Yes, there was a recent OSHA assessment and they 

did not—as Mr. Hantman said in his testimony, did not have any 

citations that came out of that assessment. 

MANHATTAN’S PROGRESS

Senator DURBIN. Does GAO have any comment on the Manhattan Construction Company experience at the work site? It is my 

understanding they have met only 3 of the 11 milestones scheduled 

for completion. 

Mr. UNGAR. Are you talking about worker safety, sir, or construction work? 

Senator DURBIN. Construction work. 

Mr. UNGAR. Overall, Manhattan is making a great deal of 

progress, sir. However, it has not met a number of the milestones 

that were set in the April schedule for the period between the last 

hearing and this hearing, for a variety of reasons. One of the 

things that it has done is resequenced the schedule to change some 

of those milestones. 

On the one hand, as Mr. Hixon said, Manhattan certainly has 

the wherewithal to do that. It is their schedule and as long as it 

is approved by AOC that is fine. On the other hand, some of those 

dates have slipped continuously, for example, some of the wall 

stone work, since the February schedule. 

But our concern is that if this continues to happen what is going 

to end up happening is that there will be a stacking of activities 

toward the end and they will not possibly be able to finish all those 

on time. So on the one hand, progress is being made. Unfortunately, the schedule milestones were not met. The schedule has 

been revised. It yet remains to be seen as to how much progress 

will be made from this point forward, but we are going to be tracking that. 

Senator DURBIN. I know Senator Allard has asked questions on 

this, so I will not dwell on it any more. We will keep a close eye 

on it. I would like to just suggest to the subcommittee we ought 

to find out where Centex is also working for the Government, if 

there are other construction projects, and see if there has been a 

similar situation in terms of worker safety. Has the GAO looked 

into that? 
55 

Mr. UNGAR. No, sir, we have not. We have focused on this particular site. 

I would point out, as Centex has said, that, on the one hand, fortunately, there have been no fatalities, and most of the injuries 

have not been serious. However, there have been some serious injuries and there have been a large number of injuries. So it is certainly something that needs to be attended to. 

In addition, there are a number of these safety issues and concerns that Gilbane identifies monthly that are potentially hazardous situations and they continue to be identified. In our view, 

AOC and Gilbane need to continue to focus attention in a more 

proactive sense on safety at the CVC site. 

Senator DURBIN. I will just close by saying that my experience 

with worker safety is unless you are on this issue and stay on this 

issue it slips away, and people think it is just one of the costs of 

doing business that people have to walk off the work site injured, 

at great expense to themselves, their family, and the taxpayers. 

I hope that does not happen. If I could ask the GAO to do a formal letter of response to this Centex letter that would spell out 

your testimony, I would appreciate that. 

Mr. UNGAR. Yes, sir. 

Senator DURBIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator ALLARD. Thank you. 

CONSTRUCTION PROGRESS

Mr. Ungar, I want to follow up a little bit. Before I called on my 

esteemed colleague from Illinois, I was pursuing with the Architect 

and Mr. Hixon the idea that when you have the schedule change 

that you keep this subcommittee provided with the information. My 

question to you is what should the Architect’s Office be doing to 

track the construction contractor’s daily progress against the schedule? 

Then just a follow-up on this: How is this comparing with the 

process that we used during sequence 1? 

Mr. UNGAR. Mr. Dorn will answer that, sir. 

Mr. DORN. What they are starting to do is print out a daily list 

of activities for the superintendents and then the superintendents 

go out on the job site to see what is being done and what was supposed to be done, is it being done or not. That is a great step, to 

do this daily and weekly monitoring of actual activities to what is 

going on out there on the job site. That is real progress. And if it 

was not done, you would document the reasons why it was not 

done, and what is going to be done in the future to get those tasks 

on track. 

It is like Mr. Ungar said a little while ago, if things keep moving 

off to the right eventually you get so many activities stacked up 

that you cannot get them all done at once. 

One of the indicators we are seeing of that is 1 month ago we 

had one critical path and now we have got a number of critical or 

near-critical paths simultaneously. That is not completely uncommon. It does happen, but it is an indicator that things are starting 

to become more critical. 
56 

SYSTEM COMMISSIONING

Senator ALLARD. On the commissioning of systems, my understanding is that will not be done until about March 2007. Is that 

your understanding? 

Mr. HANTMAN. We are in the process, Mr. Chairman, as was indicated earlier. We have just gotten some funds approved. We are 

in the process of hiring three or four people to check into the commissioning of systems and start involving essentially the AOC and 

ultimate operations in that. 

Bob. 

Mr. HIXON. There are two elements of commissioning that are 

going to occur: the commissioning of the CVC proper and the commissioning of the expansion space. The expansion space commissioning efforts will in fact occur in early 2007, January through 

March. The commissioning for the CVC portion will be occurring in 

late April and early—did I say late April? It will be the late spring, 

summer period. Those will be the activities that will be taking 

place in order for us to open the facility in September. 

Senator ALLARD. In 2006? 

Mr. HIXON. In 2006. 

Senator ALLARD. And then the two expansion areas will be—— 

Mr. HIXON. In 2007, that is correct. The planning for that is underway now. 

OCCUPANCY PERMITS

Senator ALLARD. A certificate of occupancy is the final step. I 

would assume that they are not going to issue that certificate of 

occupancy until everything is in place and that is part of the process. Will they write you a certificate of occupancy for the entire 

new complex on the site or do they issue two separate certificates 

of occupancy, one for the expansion space and then one for the Capitol Visitor Center? 

Mr. HIXON. Yes, sir. 

Senator ALLARD. I think that could resolve some of our issues 

that we might have with the actual date when we can go ahead 

and occupy that portion of the new Capitol complex. 

Mr. HIXON. We are working with the fire marshal and going 

through that. We have to get his concurrence and acceptance of the 

fire alarm systems and the smoke evacuation systems. That work 

is going to be occurring in the late spring and during the summer 

for the CVC portion, so that we can in fact occupy the CVC on 

schedule. 

Then we will be going through the same effort to take care of the 

expansion space, and then we will have to integrate those systems 

in the expansion space into the base CVC program. So all those 

smoke detector systems that are in the expansion space have to be 

integrated into the main building system. So that is what will be 

occurring in the early part of 2007. 

OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATION

Senator ALLARD. So we have got one certificate of occupancy that 

will not be issued until all the fire alarms are in place? 
57 

Mr. HIXON. Yes, sir. We will be able to occupy. We will get the 

certificate to occupy the CVC for September, but not the expansion 

space. And then we will have another certificate to occupy the expansion space, which will probably incorporate all the expansion 

space into the CVC area. 

Senator ALLARD. Then the last thing to go in would be in March. 

It looks like we’ve got around the end of March here, and that 

would be the fire alarm commissioning. 

Mr. HIXON. That is bringing the expansion space fire alarm system into the base building. So we will be attaching all of those elements into it and retesting the entire building system with the expansion space included with the CVC. So they will be doing retesting to make sure when we add those components everything all 

functions properly. 

Senator ALLARD. That will not have any effect on the main visitor center? 

Mr. HIXON. No, sir. It will be done evenings and weekends. 

Senator ALLARD. Mr. Ungar? 

FIRE ALARM SYSTEM

Mr. UNGAR. Sir, I just wanted to point out that the system that 

Mr. Hixon is referring to, the fire alarm system and the smoke 

evacuation system, are among those activities that our last review 

of the schedule found to be optimistic. In other words, the project 

participants believed that the time allotted for those activities in 

the last schedule was not doable in their view. So this is an activity 

that we have asked AOC and Gilbane to go back and reassess in 

detail to get a better handle on that. 

Senator ALLARD. Yes, it seems to me we have to have some cooperation from the fire marshal. 

Mr. HIXON. Absolutely. 

Senator ALLARD. I mean, if he does not cooperate we are in trouble on your dates. 

Mr. HIXON. Yes, sir. We are meeting with the fire marshal every 

other week as we work through the planning on how to do the commissioning of these systems and ensure that all the components are 

acceptable. So we are in the throes of the process right now of planning exactly how we will test these systems and in what order and 

what components. So that process is very much underway. 

Senator ALLARD. I would hope that he would have his ducks in 

order. I serve on the D.C. subcommittee too, so maybe I will ask 

a few questions about whether they are getting their ducks in order 

for that. 

Mr. HIXON. This is the AOC’s fire marshal that we are working 

with. 

Senator ALLARD. Oh, it is our fire marshal. 

Mr. HIXON. Yes, sir, although he does coordinate with the District emergency response and organizations of that nature. So he 

is our contact to any District support. 

Senator ALLARD. We still need to make sure that they are coordinating with us, so that we do not have unnecessary delays, to make 

sure that they have money in their budget, to make sure that they 

have whatever it takes to get a smooth transition. Even though we 
58 

have the opening date on the visitor center, we still could have 

some issues. 

Mr. HANTMAN. The Fire Department of D.C. is the fire department that serves Capitol Hill as well. So clearly, whatever they 

need in terms of hydrants and accessibility is something that they 

would be concerned with and we are concerned with working with 

them on. 

Senator ALLARD. And they would provide the fire hydrants? 

Mr. HANTMAN. We provide the fire hydrants, basically where 

they agree to it. That is why our fire marshal is interfacing with 

them and making sure that wherever the trucks come on campus 

that we have the taps for them. 

Senator ALLARD. And you are reaching some agreements with 

those local agencies? 

Mr. HIXON. I am adding some fire hydrants right now. 

Senator ALLARD. Do you want to comment, Mr. Dorn? 

LIFE SAFETY EGRESS

Mr. DORN. Yes, sir. It adds to what Bernie was saying just a second ago. On the schedule, when the CVC and the expansion spaces 

were going to be finished at the same time there was not an issue 

about the egress. But if the expansion space is not going to be finished until months later than the CVC, the Architect has determined that there are egress pathways that need to be built to get 

through the expansion space so that everyone can get out of the 

CVC in case there is an incident of some sort. And finishing those 

separately will probably end up costing more money. 

Senator ALLARD. Do you want to respond, Mr. Hantman? 

Mr. HANTMAN. No question about that. In terms of planning, the 

horizontal means of visitor egress from the center into the stairways that are part of the expansion space are part and parcel of 

all of the planning and our discussions with the fire marshal to 

make sure that we have that level of safety incorporated. 

EXPANSION SPACE WORK

Senator ALLARD. Mr. Hantman, I understand now that the expansion space contract has been awarded to Manhattan Construction, but the award to Manhattan’s subcontractor has not been 

made. Why and will this impact the schedule, and when will the 

award be made? 

Mr. HANTMAN. This should not impact the schedule. This is part 

of Manhattan’s internal contracting process, to reach agreement 

with their subcontractor. So it typically is taking them 2 to 3 weeks 

to have a ratified contract with their subcontractor. They are in the 

process of doing that. That is not something we are normally aware 

of. As far as the Government is concerned, we have a contract with 

Manhattan and this is internal to them. 

It becomes of interest to us to make sure it does not impact anything. But at this point we are not anticipating any impact. 

RISK MITIGATION PLAN

Senator ALLARD. Now, the GAO recommended several times over 

the past 2 years that the Architect of the Capitol develop a risk 
59 

mitigation plan. Mr. Ungar, what is a risk mitigation plan and 

what do you see as the top five risks to the project’s schedule and 

budget? Then, Mr. Hantman, can you give us a commitment to 

produce a risk mitigation plan for the top five risks by the time we 

meet next month? 

So let us go ahead with GAO and then we will have Mr. 

Hantman follow up. 

Mr. UNGAR. Mr. Dorn will address that, sir. 

Mr. DORN. A risk mitigation plan would first identify the major 

risks that are facing the project, and would then look at the ones 

that are most likely to occur and that have the greatest adverse 

impact on the project. You are not going to look at every risk. You 

are going to look at the ones that have a high probability of occurring and the ones that are going to have a cost or schedule impact 

on the project. 

Some of the top risks would be the supply of stone and skilled 

stone masons. There is an issue right now that has been brought 

to our attention about how much stone we can get. Unforeseen conditions with the—— 

Senator ALLARD. Yes, I have noted, reading some testimony here, 

that not only is there a shortage in the stone, but also a shortage 

in craftsmen who know how to work with the stone. Is that correct, 

or is it just a shortage of the stone? 

Mr. DORN. It has been an ongoing risk that has been identified 

by the Architect and by us, I believe, that the supply of stone masons is limited, of skilled stone masons. I know Manhattan has 

been scouring the country looking for stone masons, from what 

they have told me. But it is a risk. 

The unforeseen conditions with the two remaining tunnels. The 

utility tunnel, it is still not complete yet; and the House connector 

tunnel, which is up closer to the building and because of that has 

a lot of risks to it. 

Additional requirements from the fire marshal or from security 

for life safety, security, filtration systems, and commissioning. Contractor coordination issues as we get down, get down to the wire 

and we have additional contractors on site. Unknown operator requirements. This gets back to the idea that Zell is just now being 

brought back on board again and until we get the operator requirements and get those integrated into the master schedule that AOC 

and Gilbane are working on, to know what you need to do to get 

the operational piece of it done, you have got the risk of your 

schedule going off to the right for you. 

There are additional risks for scope gaps. Between sequence 1 

and sequence 2, work that was never in any of the contracts just 

slipped through the cracks, when you break these jobs up into 

smaller projects; or between sequence 2 and the expansion spaces. 

An example would be the utility tunnel. The utility tunnel is under 

contract. There is a plan for the modifications to the Jefferson 

Building. 

There is the intersection—knocking a hole in the wall of the Jefferson Building. I believe there is a separate plan now for that, but 

that was not included in some of the original estimates. There is 

an example of where you can lose track of all the pieces. 
60 

RISK MITIGATION FACTORS

Senator ALLARD. Let me make sure I understand your five, then. 

It would be the stone, the tunnel, the safety issues, a coordination 

issue between the contractor and the construction issues, as well 

as the operator, and the fifth would be the sequence 1 to sequence 

2 issues. Would that be your five? 

Mr. DORN. Yes, sir. I may have misspoken on that. It was the 

Library of Congress tunnel. 

Senator ALLARD. Okay, Mr. Hantman or Mr. Hixon? 

Mr. HIXON. Yes, sir. We are pursuing doing a risk assessment 

with McDonough Bolyard Peck, who’s been a consultant to us doing 

research. Risk assessment on construction is a relatively new issue. 

There is a process that is evolving on how to do that, software in 

order to process that. So now we have been researching how to do 

that. 

I expect to do it. We will not have it done by the next hearing. 

We have to bring them under contract. We have to actually go 

through this evaluation. It is going to take us a few months in 

order to be able to complete that activity. We do agree that it is 

a good idea. We probably have slightly different areas that we are 

concerned about, but many of them are the same. The House connector tunnel is certainly an area of risk for us; the Jefferson 

Building work where we are going into the building and building 

a stairwell. Those are the kinds of things that we agree this would 

probably be a useful process for. We have never done it before, so 

we are looking for consultants who have done this effectively so 

that we can do it. But it is going to take us a few months in order 

to accomplish that. 

Senator ALLARD. So for us to expect you to have a risk mitigation 

plan by the next month would be unrealistic? 

Mr. HIXON. That is correct. sir. 

Senator ALLARD. Do you think that is something we ought to set 

up for September? 

Mr. HIXON. Yes, sir. 

Senator ALLARD. Would that be more appropriate? 

Mr. HIXON. Yes, sir. 

Senator ALLARD. Do you think you could have it done by then? 

Mr. HIXON. We believe we can. We will certainly be able to tell 

you next month if there is an issue with that. 

ADDITIONAL FISCAL YEAR 2005 FUNDING

Senator ALLARD. Okay, very good. 

Now, we did give the Architect of the Capitol some extra money 

here to finish off the year. Do you have some money left over for 

a contingency if something unexpected should come up between 

now and the end of the fiscal year? 

Mr. HANTMAN. We have just asked for some reprogramming dollars, dollars that we did not need for sequence 1, for some other 

activities on the East Front to enable us to do just that, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator ALLARD. So you do not see any need for additional dollars right now, from now until the end of the year? 
61 

Mr. HANTMAN. At this time we do not. However, there is the settlement of delays to the sequence 2 contractor that we have received some proposals from the contractor for those delays. The 

compensation, the money funding for those activities, is in the fiscal year 2006 budget request. 

We also are looking at the quantity of change orders and so our 

expectation is that we are going to be close but okay. But we are 

continuing to monitor that as we go along. Some of the reprogramming that we have talked about was to take some funds available 

that will not be used in sequence 1 and 1C, the East Front, and 

utilize that for contingencies, for the Jefferson Building work, the 

stairwell there, and for contingency for the House connector tunnel, 

because when we award that tunnel there will be no contingency 

funding available on that line item. 

With that done, we expect to be very close on the quantity of 

change orders that have been identified. So I think GAO’s point is 

they recognize how close we are and they say, if you get a big surprise then you are going to have a problem. We have the funding 

available under the CVC operations budget. There are a few million dollars there that would be available if we need it. We were 

waiting to ask for that until we can document that we do in fact 

need that money. 

If I do not process change orders as quickly as we want to, there 

would still be change order contingency money available. So I think 

it is a little bit premature for me to ask for funding right now because I can’t document the need is really there. But it is a bit tight. 

FISCAL YEAR 2006 BUDGET REQUEST

Senator ALLARD. The last question then is, for your fiscal year 

2006 budget request, which includes $36.9 million for the CVC, 

since we are marking up now, just next week, can you give me your 

best estimate of what you need for fiscal year 2006 and when the 

Architect of the Capitol will need those funds? 

Mr. HIXON. My best guess is that we will need, at this point we 

will need all $36.9 million. I think it would not be prudent to go 

for less than that. There are items of work that were identified 

when this was put together, when we did our cost to complete last 

year, that we may not do. But there are other things that have 

come up that would require the use of those funds. 

I have asked McDonough Bolyard Peck to update their proposal 

for the cost to complete. We have had some discussions with the 

CPC about doing that perhaps a little sooner so that we can get 

the answers in here and give GAO the opportunity to review those, 

so we have that information in September. But at this point in 

time I don’t think it would be prudent to reduce that at all. 

I do not think we need to increase it at all, but I do not think, 

with the number of issues that are going on, and especially until 

we get the new cost to complete updated, that we would need all 

of that with the issues that have been coming up. 

Senator ALLARD. Mr. Ungar? 

Mr. UNGAR. Mr. Chairman, we believe that, as we indicate in our 

statement, that AOC is likely to need more than the $36.9 million 

in fiscal year 2006. Exactly how much we are not sure. But our 

best guess at this point would be roughly somewhere between $5 
62 

million and $15 million more in fiscal year 2006, depending upon 

how the risks and uncertainties play out and AOC’s experience 

with the delay costs that may arise from sequence 1. 

I also want to point out that I may have misunderstood your question that you raised during my oral summary about the $37 

million. 

Senator ALLARD. Yes. 

Mr. UNGAR. We did identify that in our last statement as being 

needed. So it was not something that just came up between hearings. I may not have understood exactly what you were asking 

when you asked it, since last year, we have identified that amount 

of money, plus some additional funds that we thought would be 

needed in addition to the amount that AOC has asked for. 

CLOSING STATEMENT OF SENATOR WAYNE ALLARD

Senator ALLARD. I appreciate your clarifying that and I am sure 

Mr. Hantman does, too. 

I want to thank you for taking the time to appear before our 

panel today and giving us an update on how things are going on 

the Capitol Visitor Center. I am pleased with the progress that we 

are making. Obviously there are some things that we have to 

watch very closely as we move forward. I think we are beginning 

to get those identified and hopefully begin to get the schedule in 

place with better cost estimates. 

SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

So I want to thank you, and we will plan on holding another 

hearing next month, July 14. There were a few questions we put 

in place today. We had some commitments for follow-up, so you can 

expect those. 

Thank you very much, gentlemen. 

[Whereupon, at 11:42 a.m., Tuesday, June 14, the subcommittee 

was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of the Chair.] 
(63) 

PROGRESS OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE 

CAPITOL VISITOR CENTER 

THURSDAY, JULY 14, 2005 

U.S. SENATE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH, 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met at 10:49 a.m., in room SD–138, Dirksen 

Senate Office Building, Hon. Wayne Allard (chairman) presiding. 

Present: Senator Allard. 

STATEMENT OF BERNARD L. UNGAR, DIRECTOR, PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE, GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE 

ACCOMPANIED BY TERRELL DORN, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, PHYSICAL 

INFRASTRUCTURE, GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR WAYNE ALLARD

Senator ALLARD. We will go ahead and call the Legislative 

Branch Appropriations Subcommittee to order. This is the situation 

this morning: we have just finished one vote on the floor of the 

Senate. We are anticipating a total of four votes altogether and so 

we are going to try and work this through as best we can this 

morning. 

Mr. Ungar, you are going to testify on behalf of the Government 

Accountability Office (GAO), correct? 

Mr. UNGAR. Along with Mr. Dorn, yes, sir. 

Senator ALLARD. Okay. Then the plan is that I will go ahead and 

make an opening statement and get things started, and then if Mr. 

Hantman is not here we will let you go ahead and present your testimony, and then we will go to Mr. Hantman. I appreciate the 

panel joining us this morning. We will struggle through this morning with all the votes. 

We meet today to take testimony on the progress of the Capitol 

Visitor Center (CVC). We will hear from the Architect of the Capitol, Alan Hantman; the CVC Project Manager Bob Hixon; and Bernard Ungar and Terrell Dorn of the Government Accountability Office. Thank you all for being here this morning for our third hearing on the progress of the Capitol Visitor Center. 

At our hearing last month, the Architect and GAO reported that 

progress had been made in many areas, but milestones were not 

being met in several areas on the critical path. This month more 

milestones have not been met on schedule. In fact, only 3 of 17 

milestones in the last 2 months have been met by the date that 

they were scheduled to be completed. 
64 

Currently it seems the biggest concern is an inadequate delivery 

of stone to the job site, resulting in insufficient progress on stone 

work. Stone work in the Great Hall is months behind, as I understand it. 

In addition, coordination issues with the fire marshal continue to 

be a key concern. Finally, I understand the contractor’s schedule is 

showing a completion date of October 19, 2006, not September 15, 

2006, as we were informed last month. 

So we have plenty to discuss today and we look forward to understanding these issues better. Before we get started, let me note 

that one of our GAO witnesses, Terry Dorn, left his family at the 

beach, where they were vacationing this week, to be here today. We 

do appreciate, Mr. Dorn, your commitment to public service. 

So let me go ahead and call on GAO to give their testimony. 

Mr. UNGAR. Mr. Chairman, we are pleased to be here today to 

assist the subcommittee in its oversight of the Capitol Visitor Center. I would like to summarize the key points that we have in our 

statement, particularly with respect to the project schedule and 

cost. 

SCHEDULE PROGRESS AND PROBLEMS

First, on the schedule, progress has been made during the month 

in a number of areas, particularly electrical, mechanical, masonry 

block, and plaster walls. Another area where we saw significant 

progress was in the actual management of the project schedule by 

the construction manager and the AOC. We noted this month a 

much more rigorous analysis and monitoring of the schedule, a 

very good use of the information that that monitoring and analysis 

produced. We are very encouraged by the quality of the work that 

has been done by the project control engineer that Gilbane has recently assigned full time to the project and by the project executive, 

Bob Hixon, as well as the rest of the team to focus on schedule 

management. It really has made a difference. 

Having said that, however, we do still have a number of concerns 

with respect to the schedule which we would just like to briefly 

summarize. First, we continue to be concerned about the realism 

associated with the September 15, 2006, opening for a number of 

reasons. There are a number of remaining risks to the project 

which have actually materialized. 

For instance, you indicated a problem on the stone supply; that 

has been a real problem. In fact, a stone problem associated with 

the east front work has resulted in, as you indicated, a pushing on 

the schedule of the opening date from September 15 to October 19. 

AOC and the construction contractor and the construction manager 

are aware of this problem and they are working to resolve that. 

They do believe that they can mitigate that particular situation 

and bring the schedule back, but that has yet to be worked out. 

They also have a stone supply problem that they are working on 

and that has other issues associated with it that they are not directly controlling, and that has to do with some litigation. 

They are also having problems on the utility tunnel. That is 

scheduled right now to be operational 5 months later than AOC anticipated the team is working to bring that back. However, they 
65 

still may need to use temporary dehumidification. That is not clear 

yet and we may know more by your next hearing on that. 

As you indicated, there are a number of milestones that are slipping because of some of these problems that have come up, such 

as the stone work and utility tunnel. Also, this month we were 

tracking along with AOC for the subcommittee six milestones. The 

sequence 2 contractor has finished work on one of those six, but 

was not on time, so, in effect, none of those milestones were met. 

Again, AOC believes that time can be made up. It has plenty of 

time to do that. On the other hand, as these milestones keep slipping there may be so many of them stacked up at one point that 

they may not be able to get to them all, and time will tell that 

story. 

There are several activities, seven to be exact, that have been 

identified on the schedule for the last 2 months that are either critical or near-critical. Having so many activities in that status makes 

it much more difficult to manage the project and it will make it 

more complicated for the team to meet the date. But at least they 

are aware of them and they are working on them. 

We continue to believe that the schedule durations are optimistic. The construction manager and contractor did do an assessment this month of 11 of the 14 that they were going to assess. 

They delayed the assessment on three of those. They believed— 

using their judgment, that the durations were reasonable. On the 

other hand, we were looking toward perhaps a more detailed databased assessment. They said they will do that in the future. 

When we looked at some of the specific activities, we had some 

concerns. For example, the stone work in the food service area, 

which is the furthest along, is actually taking significantly longer 

than the duration that was originally anticipated, which indicates 

to us that the durations that are in the schedule may still be optimistic. 

Another problem with the schedule that we noted this month has 

to do with coordination with the fire marshal, between the team 

and the fire marshal. That has been a problem. We have brought 

that to AOC’s attention and AOC has been taking steps with the 

AOC fire marshal, to address that. So I think that appropriate 

steps have been put in place to address that issue. 

Finally, as we indicated on the schedule last month, AOC does 

not yet have an integrated schedule with respect to both construction and operations. We believe that is very important and getting 

more important as the months go by; it is something that really 

does need to be done. 

PROJECT COSTS CONTINUE TO INCREASE

On the cost side, costs continue to increase, as we had indicated 

in our statement. For example, the estimated cost for the proposed 

or potential change orders have increased about $900,000 since the 

last testimony that we did. Most of that estimated cost increase 

was related to the fire protection system. Overall that system is increasing in cost; it increased over $4 million overall. We do think 

that there are some issues associated with exactly what is required. There had been some disagreement within the CVC project 
66 

team on that. AOC is aware of that, and we had suggested that 

AOC try to nail that down and AOC is in the process of doing that. 

We also believe that there is an important need to balance the 

funding available for both construction and operations so that there 

is an optimal use of those funds between now and the time that 

the fiscal year 2006 appropriation is available. There is about $7.8 

million available for either construction or operations right now, 

and both construction and operations in our view need funds. So 

AOC will have to work an approach out to make sure there is an 

appropriate decision made there as to what to ask for. 

Also on the cost side, we do believe it would be important for 

Congress and the subcommittee to know how much additional it 

may cost for AOC to meet the September 15, 2006, date. We see 

two areas where AOC may incur additional costs. One is having to 

take temporary measures to open the facility to the public because 

the expansion spaces may not be done or other aspects of the facility may not be done; or AOC may have to accelerate some work in 

order to meet that timeframe. The question in our mind is are 

those costs going to be acceptable to the Congress. 

ACTIONS NEEDED

In terms of actions that we think need to be taken, first we think 

that AOC needs to designate an official, a responsible official to 

oversee the integration of the construction and operations planning, scheduling, and budgeting. Right now there is a team on construction and AOC has individuals who are going to be working on 

operations, but there is nobody who is overseeing the integration 

or the linkage of the two. That is very important, to make sure 

both the scheduling and the budget are worked out for that activity. 

Second, we think that AOC needs to inform the Congress on 

what its estimated additional costs are for opening the facility on 

September 15, to the extent that there may be those kinds of costs. 

Third, we think that AOC needs to focus continuously on schedule management and monitoring and aggressively dealing with the 

issues that come up, particularly looking at the durations. Our 

thinking is that for your next hearing if AOC were to relook at 

stone in depth and the utility tunnel, and perhaps the occupancy 

inspection activity, that that would be a good start to getting a real 

rigorous analysis of the realism of the schedule. 

Finally, if AOC were to have a clear definitive picture of the fire 

safety and life safety requirements for the facility by the next hearing, we believe that would be a very positive step in the right direction. 

That concludes our summary. We would be happy to answer 

questions. 

Senator ALLARD. Well, thank you, Mr. Ungar, for your testimony. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF BERNARD L. UNGAR

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: We are pleased to be here 

today to assist the Subcommittee in monitoring progress on the Capitol Visitor Center (CVC) project. As requested, we will focus our remarks today on the Architect 

of the Capitol’s (AOC) progress in achieving selected project milestones and in managing the project’s schedule since the Subcommittee’s June 14 hearing on the 
67 

1GAO, Capitol Visitor Center: Effective Schedule Management and Updated Cost Information 

Are Needed, GAO–05–811T (Washington, D.C.: June 14, 2005). See also GAO, Capitol Visitor 

Center: Priority Attention Needed to Manage Schedules and Contracts, GAO–05–714T (Washington, D.C.: May 17, 2005). 

project.1 We will also discuss the project’s costs and funding, including the potential 

cost impact of schedule-related issues. Our observations today are based on our review of schedules and financial reports for the CVC project and related records 

maintained by AOC and its construction management contractor, Gilbane Building 

Company; our observations on the progress of work at the CVC construction site; 

and our discussions with AOC’s Chief Fire Marshal and CVC project staff, including 

AOC, its major CVC contractors, and representatives of an AOC schedule consultant, McDonough Bolyard Peck (MBP). We did not perform an audit; rather, we performed our work to assist Congress in conducting its oversight activities. 

In summary, AOC and its major construction contractors have made progress on 

the project since the Subcommittee’s June 14 hearing, but work on some of the selected milestones scheduled for completion by today’s hearing is incomplete; some 

work has been postponed; and some new issues have arisen that could affect the 

project’s progress. Specifically, as of July 12, AOC’s sequence 2 contractor, Manhattan Construction Company, had completed work on 11 of the 17 selected milestones 

scheduled for completion before today’s hearing; however, it completed only 3 of the 

17 milestones on time. The sequence 2 contractor missed the 14 remaining milestones for such reasons as unforeseen site conditions, design problems, and more 

time being taken to complete some other work than expected. In addition, the date 

scheduled for the initial operation of the utility tunnel is now about 5 months later 

than AOC had anticipated, and unforeseen conditions could delay the installation 

of stone in the East Front. Although the June project schedule shows that the delay 

on the East Front stonework would move the scheduled opening date for the CVC 

project to October 19, 2006, AOC does not expect the delays in completing the remaining milestones, including the utility tunnel and East Front stonework, to postpone the project’s scheduled September 2006 completion date. In AOC’s view, the 

contractor can recover the time lost in completing these milestones, as well as make 

up for delays in completing interior stonework, by such means as using temporary 

equipment, adding workers, or resequencing work, although using temporary equipment or adding workers will also increase the project’s costs. Largely because of past 

problems, remaining risks and uncertainties, and the number of activities that are 

not being completed on time, we continue to believe that the project is more likely 

to be completed in the December 2006 to March 2007 timeframe than in September 

2006. AOC and its construction management contractor have continued their efforts 

to respond to two recommendations we made to improve the project’s management— 

having a realistic, acceptable schedule and aggressively monitoring and managing 

adherence to that schedule. However, we still have some concerns about the amount 

of time scheduled for some activities, the extent to which resources can be applied 

to meet dates in the schedule, the linkage of related activities in the schedule, and 

the integration of planning for completing construction and starting operations. 

Since the Subcommittee’s last CVC hearing, AOC has engaged contractors to help 

it respond to two other recommendations we made—developing risk mitigation 

plans and preparing a master schedule that integrates the major steps needed to 

complete construction with the steps needed to prepare for operations. AOC has also 

been taking a number of actions to improve coordination between the CVC project 

team and AOC’s Fire Marshal Division. Insufficient coordination in this area has 

already affected the project’s schedule and cost, and could do so again if further improvements are not made. 

We continue to believe that the project’s estimated cost at completion will be between $522 million and $559 million, and that, as we have previously indicated, 

AOC will likely need as much as $37 million more than it has requested to cover 

risks and uncertainties to complete the project. At this time, we believe that roughly 

$5 million to $15 million of this $37 million is likely to be needed in fiscal year 

2006, and the remainder in fiscal year 2007. In the next 2 to 3 months, AOC plans 

to update its estimate of the project’s remaining costs. We will review this estimate 

and provide Congress with our estimate together with information on when any additional funding is likely to be needed. During the next several months, AOC is likely to face competing demands for funds that can be used for either CVC construction 

or operations, and it will be important for AOC to ensure that the available funds 

are optimally used. Finally, we are concerned that AOC may incur costs to open the 

facility to the public in September 2006 that it would not incur if it postponed the 

opening until after the remaining construction work is more or fully complete—that 

is, in March 2007, according to AOC’s estimates. 
68 

2 A critical path is a sequence of activities in a schedule that has the longest duration. There 

is no scheduling flexibility or slack time associated with the activities. This means that a delay 

in a critical path activity will delay the entire project unless a way is found to reduce the time 

required for other activities along the critical path. A schedule may have multiple critical paths 

simultaneously, and the critical path through a project can change as the project is updated and 

as the time estimated to complete the tasks changes. Currently, AOC’s schedule shows CVC’s 

critical path running through some interior wall stone and East Front stonework. The schedule 

also shows other work elements, such as the utility tunnel and millwork, as near critical (i.e., 

having little slack time). 

We are recommending that AOC designate who will be responsible for integrating 

the planning and budgeting for CVC construction and operations and notify Congress in advance of any estimated costs it believes it will incur to open CVC to the 

public in September 2006 rather than when the facility is more complete. AOC 

agreed with these recommendations. 

Schedule Milestones and Management 

AOC and its major construction contractors have moved the CVC project forward 

since the Subcommittee’s June 14 hearing, although the majority of the selected 

milestones scheduled for completion by today’s hearing have not been completed on 

time. According to the construction management contractor, the base project’s construction was about 70 percent complete as of June 30, compared with about 65 percent as of May 31. The sequence 1 contractor, Centex Construction Company, which 

was responsible for the project’s excavation and structural work, has continued to 

address punch-list items, such as stopping water leaks. Although AOC had expected 

the sequence 1 contractor to complete the punch-list work and be off-site by June 

30, some of this work remains to be done. The sequence 1 contractor has closed its 

on-site project office and plans to send workers back to the site to complete the remaining work. AOC has retained funds from the sequence 1 contractor that it believes will be sufficient to cover the cost of the remaining work. Furthermore, the 

sequence 2 contractor, which is responsible for the mechanical, electrical, plumbing, 

and finishing work, has continued to make progress in these areas, including erecting masonry block, placing concrete, and installing finish stone, drywall framing, 

plaster, and granite pavers. Many of the granite pavers that were installed on the 

plaza deck for the inauguration have to be replaced because of problems with quality or damage after installation. The sequence 2 contractor plans to replace these 

pavers when the plaza deck will no longer be needed for deliveries of construction 

materials. The sequence 2 contractor has also continued work on the utility tunnel, 

and in June, AOC executed a sequence 2 contract modification to construct the 

House connector tunnel. AOC expects this work to begin soon. 

As the Subcommittee requested, we worked with AOC to select sequence 2 milestones that the Subcommittee can use to help track the project’s progress from the 

Subcommittee’s May 17 hearing to July 31. We and AOC selected 22 milestones, of 

which 11 were scheduled for completion before June 14, 6 others before July 14, and 

5 others before July 31. These milestones are shown in appendix 1 and include activities on the project’s critical path, as well as other activities that we and AOC 

believe are important for the project’s timely completion.2 As we reported during the 

Subcommittee’s June 14 hearing, AOC’s sequence 2 contractor completed 6 of the 

11 selected activities scheduled for completion before that date—3 were completed 

on time and 3 were late. The remaining 5 activities had not been completed as of 

June 14. Of these 5, 4 have now been completed and as of July 12, 1 remained incomplete. In addition, as of July 12, the contractor was late in completing 1 of the 

6 selected activities scheduled for completion between June 14 and July 14 and had 

not yet completed the remaining 5. AOC does not expect these delays to extend the 

project’s scheduled September 2006 completion date because it believes that the sequence 2 contractor can recover the lost time. 

A few months ago, AOC expected the utility tunnel to be operational in October 

2005, but it extended that date to March 20, 2006, before the June hearing. The 

June schedule shows the tunnel being operational on March 7. The sequence 2 contractor has indicated that the impact of the October-to-March delay on CVC construction could be mitigated by using temporary dehumidification equipment, adding more workers to certain utility tunnel activities, or both. However, this mitigation approach would increase the government’s costs. We previously identified the 

utility tunnel as a project schedule and cost risk because of possible unforeseen conditions associated with underground work, and AOC and the sequence 2 contractor 

believe that such risk still exists with respect to the remaining tunnel work. Given 

this risk and the importance to the rest of the project of having the utility tunnel 

operational as soon as possible, AOC has asked the project team to explore options 

for accelerating the completion of the work necessary to begin the tunnel’s oper-
69 

ations. We agree with AOC that delays in making this tunnel operational could 

have significant adverse effects on other project elements and that priority attention 

should be given to this area. Accelerating work may be cost-beneficial in this case. 

Since the June 14 hearing, the sequence 2 contractor has also encountered unforeseen conditions that, according to AOC’s construction management contractor, could 

delay the installation of stone on the Capitol’s East Front. Unless mitigated, this 

delay, in turn, could delay AOC’s estimated September 15, 2006, opening date. In 

fact, the June schedule shows a 24-day delay for this work, which is on the project’s 

critical path, and therefore pushes AOC’s scheduled date for opening CVC to the 

public to October 19, 2006. AOC and its construction management contractor are 

assessing the situation and expect to have more information on this problem within 

the next month. However, they believe that they will be able to recover the lost time 

by resequencing work, although they acknowledge that their mitigation approach 

would require sufficient stone to be available. The project has not been receiving 

stone in the quantities set forth in the delivery schedule—a risk that we previously 

identified—and AOC and its contractors have been taking action to address this 

problem, but have not yet resolved it. Mitigating this potential delay in East Front 

stone installation could increase the government’s costs if the mitigation involves, 

among other actions, expediting the installation to recover lost time. 

Our May 17 and June 14 statements contained several observations on AOC’s 

management of the project’s schedules, including our view that problems in this 

area contributed to slippage in the project’s scheduled completion date and additional project costs associated with delays. The statements also discussed recommendations we had already made to AOC to enhance its schedule management. 

AOC had agreed with these recommendations and had generally begun to implement them, but we believed that it still needed to give priority attention to them 

to keep the project on track and as close to budget as possible. An updated discussion follows of the issues that need AOC’s priority attention, along with current information on the status of AOC’s actions to address these issues. 

—Having realistic timeframes for completing work and obtaining fully acceptable 

schedules from contractors. Over the course of the project, AOC’s schedules 

have shown dates for completing tasks that project personnel themselves considered optimistic or unlikely to be met. In addition, the master project schedule 

(prepared by AOC’s construction management contractor) that AOC was using 

in May 2005 (the April schedule that AOC said it would use as a baseline for 

measuring progress on the project) did not tie all interrelated activities together 

and did not identify the resources to be applied for all the activities, as AOC’s 

contract requires. During the Subcommittee’s June 14 hearing, AOC said that 

it would reassess the time scheduled for tasks by today’s hearing. Since the 

Subcommittee’s June 14 hearing, AOC’s construction management and sequence 

2 contractors reviewed the reasonableness of the time scheduled for 14 critical 

or near-critical activities and determined that, in general, the time shown in the 

May 2005 schedule reasonably reflected the time required to perform 11 of 

these activities. In addition, the sequence 2 contractor agreed to provide more 

detail about the 3 remaining activities so that the reasonableness of the time 

scheduled for them could be reviewed later. 

Although the contractors’ review did not involve a detailed, data-based analysis of the time scheduled for activities using such information as crew size and 

worker productivity, AOC’s construction management contractor said that it 

would do such analyses in the future, as appropriate. The construction management contractor said it has not yet done such an analysis for stonework because, to date, less stone has been delivered to the site than was expected and 

more stone workers have been available than could be used, given the shortage 

of stone. In AOC’s view, this stone shortage has begun to delay important activities, and as we previously indicated, AOC is working with its contractors to 

resolve the problem. 

According to AOC’s construction management contractor, both the project’s 

May and June 2005 master schedules (1) reflect significant improvement in the 

linkage of interrelated tasks, although the contractor recognizes that more work 

needs to be done in this area and (2) generally provide sufficient information 

to manage the project’s resources. However, the contractor also recognizes the 

need for the sequence 2 and other contractors to continue adding more detail 

to the activities scheduled for some project elements, such as the exhibit and 

expansion spaces, so that more of the interrelated activities will be linked in 

the schedule. The contractor also said that it will be continuously reassessing 

the extent to which construction contractors identify the resources they plan to 

apply to meet scheduled completion dates, as contractually required. Both adding detail to activities and identifying the resources to be applied are helpful 
70 

in assessing the reasonableness of the time scheduled and in managing contractors’ performance. The sequence 2 contractor has provided a separate schedule 

showing its target dates for adding more detail to 30 project tasks. On July 8, 

AOC’s construction management contractor accepted the April project schedule, 

subject to several conditions. 

Because the May 2005 master schedule for the CVC project contains additional detail on activities and information on resources to be applied, we agree 

with AOC’s construction management contractor that this schedule represents 

an improvement over earlier schedules. However, we still have concerns about 

the extent to which the schedule links related activities, which the construction 

management contractor has agreed to address, and about whether AOC’s September 15, 2006, target date for opening the facility to the public is realistic. 

For the following reasons, we continue to believe that the project is more likely 

to be substantially completed in the December 2006 to March 2007 time frame 

than by September 2006: 

—Because of unforeseen site conditions and other problems, AOC’s construction 

contractors have had difficulty meeting a number of milestones. The project 

still faces risks and uncertainties that could adversely affect its schedule. As 

we noted in our June 14 testimony, the number of critical and near-critical 

paths the construction management contractor has identified complicates 

schedule management and increases the risk of problems that could lead AOC 

to miss the scheduled completion date. Like the project’s May 2005 schedule, 

the June schedule shows seven paths that are critical or near critical. Among 

the critical paths are East Front stonework and some interior stonework, 

which slipped by 24 days and 3 days in June, respectively. In addition, some 

other interior stonework that is not generally on a critical path, such as the 

installation of wall stone in the Great Hall, has slipped by about 4 months 

since April because of stone shortages according to AOC. Continued slippages 

in interior stonework could make it difficult for the sequence 2 contractor to 

meet the September 15, 2006, completion date. Although the CVC project 

team believes that it can recover this time, its ability to do so is not yet clear, 

given the stone supply problem facing the project. Furthermore, although 

work on the utility tunnel progressed during June, the tunnel work continues 

to face risks and uncertainties that could delay the project, and the May and 

June schedules show that the start and finish dates for a number of activities 

have continued to slip. Although it is possible for AOC to recover this time, 

continued slippage could push so many activities to later dates that the contractors may not be able to complete all the work in the remaining available 

time. 

—In our opinion, AOC lacks reasonable assurance that its contractors have accurately estimated the time necessary to complete work for a number of activities in the schedule. Although the construction management contractor’s 

recent review of how much time is needed to complete schedule activities was 

helpful, we are still concerned about the reasonableness of the time allowed 

for a number of the activities. For example, one of the activities reviewed in 

June whose scheduled duration was found to be generally reasonable was 

final occupancy inspections. Although AOC’s Fire Marshal Division is to do 

critical work associated with this activity, the duration review that took place 

since the June 14 hearing occurred without any input from that division, 

which is to conduct fire safety and occupancy inspections for the project and 

approve its opening to the public. The Chief Fire Marshal told us that although coordination has improved between his office and the CVC project 

team, he has not always had an opportunity to review project documentation 

early in the process and has not yet received the project schedule. As a result, 

he was uncertain whether the schedule provided enough time for his office to 

do its work. For example, as of July 8, he had not yet received documentation 

for the fire protection systems, which his office needs to examine before it can 

observe tests of these systems as the CVC team has already requested. The 

Fire Marshal Division will also be involved in fire alarm testing; the construction management contractor plans to assess the duration of this activity later 

after more detail is added to the schedule. In addition, at the time the construction management contractor performed its duration reassessment of East 

Front stonework, the project was experiencing difficulty getting stone deliveries on time. It is unclear to us how the duration of the stonework could 

have been determined to be reasonable given this problem and the lack of a 

clear resolution at the time. 

—The May 2005 schedule includes a number of base project activities that could 

be completed after September 15, 2006, even though their completion would 
71 

seem to be important for CVC to be open to the public. Such activities include 

installing security systems, kitchen equipment, and theater seating. According to the schedule, the late finish dates for these activities are after September 15. The late finish date is the latest date that an activity can be completed without delaying the scheduled completion date for the entire project. 

According to the construction management contractor, a number of activities 

in the schedule that are important to CVC’s opening were not linked to the 

September 15 opening date in the schedule. The contractor agreed to address 

this issue. 

—Last week, we began to update our risk assessment of the project’s schedule 

and plan to have this update completed in September. AOC has also engaged 

a consultant to perform a risk assessment of the project’s schedule and expects the assessment to be done by mid-September. We believe that better information on the likelihood of AOC’s meeting its September 15, 2006, opening 

date will be available after our update and AOC’s schedule risk assessment 

are done. 

—Aggressively monitoring and managing contractors’ adherence to the schedule, 

including documenting and addressing the causes of delays, and reporting accurately to Congress on the status of the project’s schedule. We noted in our May 

17 testimony that neither AOC nor its construction management contractor had 

previously (1) adhered to contract provisions calling for monthly progress review 

meetings and schedule updates and revisions, (2) systematically tracked and 

documented delays and their causes as they occurred or apportioned their time 

and costs to the appropriate parties on an ongoing basis, and (3) always accurately reported on the status of the project’s schedule. On June 7 and July 8, 

AOC, its construction management contractor, the sequence 2 contractor, and 

AOC’s schedule consultant conducted the first and second monthly reviews of 

the schedule’s status using a newly developed approach that we discussed during the Subcommittee’s June 14 hearing. Additionally, on June 28, we met with 

AOC and its construction management contractor to discuss how delays are to 

be analyzed and documented in conjunction with the new approach to schedule 

management. During that meeting, AOC’s construction management contractor 

agreed to have its field supervisors document delays and their causes on an ongoing basis and its project control engineer summarize this information for discussion at the monthly schedule reviews. After assessing the new approach and 

observing the first two review sessions, we believe that, if effectively implemented and sustained, this approach should generally resolve the schedule 

management concerns we previously raised, including how delays will regularly 

be handled and how better information on the status of the project will be provided to Congress. As we indicated on June 14, we are encouraged by the construction management contractor’s addition of a full-time project control engineer to the project and have seen noteworthy improvements in schedule management since his arrival. Nevertheless, we plan to closely monitor the implementation of this new approach, including the resources devoted to it, the handling of delays, and the accuracy of the information provided to Congress. 

—Developing and implementing risk mitigation plans. While monitoring the CVC 

project, we have identified a number of risks and uncertainties that could have 

significant adverse effects on the project’s schedule and costs. Some of these 

risks, such as underground obstructions and unforeseen conditions, have already materialized and have had the anticipated adverse effects. We believe the 

project continues to face risks and uncertainties, such as unforeseen conditions 

associated with the project’s remaining tunnels, the East Front, and other work; 

scope gaps or other problems associated with the segmentation of the project 

between two major contractors; and shortages in the supply of stone and skilled 

stone workers. As discussed during the Subcommittee’s June 14 hearing, AOC 

has not yet implemented our recommendations that it develop risk mitigation 

plans for these types of risks and uncertainties, but it has agreed to do so by 

mid-September. On July 1, AOC added assistance in risk mitigation to the scope 

of its contract with its schedule consultant. 

—Preparing a master schedule that integrates the major steps needed to complete 

CVC construction and the steps necessary to prepare for operations. A number 

of activities, such as obtaining operators’ input into the final layouts of retail 

and food service areas, hiring and training staff, procuring supplies and services, and developing policies and procedures, need to be planned and carried out 

on time for CVC to open to the public when construction is complete. Although 

AOC has started to plan and prepare for CVC operations, as we indicated in 

our May 17 and June 14 testimonies, it has not yet developed a schedule that 

integrates the construction activities with the activities that are necessary to 
72 

3See footnote 6. 

4This amount does not include $700,000 made available by the Capitol Preservation Commission from the Capitol Preservation Fund for the design of the Library of Congress tunnel. 5 In our May 17 testimony, we reported that AOC had about $700,000 remaining in its fiscal 

year 2005 funding for sequence 2 changes after deducting the estimated costs for proposed 

changes it had received. As of June 1, the estimated costs for sequence 2 changes exceeded the 

amount available for such changes by about $400,000. Since then, another $900,000 in estimated costs for potential change orders has been identified. About two-thirds of the $900,000 

increase in estimated costs for sequence 2 changes during June was for additional fire safety 

work. 

prepare for operations. The Subcommittee requested such a schedule during its 

April 13, 2005, hearing on AOC’s fiscal year 2006 budget request. Because it 

lacked funds, AOC had not been able to extend the work of a contractor that 

had been helping it plan and prepare for operations. During the week of June 

6, AOC received authority to spend the funds needed to re-engage this contractor, and on June 30, AOC awarded a contract for the continued planning 

and preparation for CVC operations. Now that AOC has re-engaged its operations planning contractor, we believe that close coordination between AOC 

staff working with this contractor and the CVC project’s construction team will 

be especially important for at least two reasons. First, the operations planning 

contractor’s scope of work includes both the design of certain space within the 

CVC project and the wayfinding signs that are to be used within the project, 

and the timing and content of this work needs to be coordinated with CVC construction work. Second, about $7.8 million 3 is available for either CVC construction or operations, and it will be important for AOC to balance the need 

for both types of funding to ensure optimal use of the funds. Moreover, it is not 

clear to us who in AOC will be specifically responsible for integrating the construction and operations schedules and for overseeing the use of the funds that 

are available for either construction or operations. 

Project Costs and Funding 

As we said during the Subcommittee’s May 17 and June 14 hearings, we estimate 

that the cost to complete the construction of the CVC project, including proposed 

revisions to its scope, will range from about $522 million without provision for risks 

and uncertainties to about $559 million with provision for risks and uncertainties. 

As of July 11, 2005, about $483.7 million had been provided for CVC construction.4

In its fiscal year 2006 budget request, AOC asked Congress for an additional $36.9 

million for CVC construction. AOC believes this amount will be sufficient to complete construction and, if approved, will bring the total funding provided for the 

project’s construction to $520.6 million. Adding $1.7 million to this amount for additional work related to the air filtration system that we believe will likely be necessary brings the total funding needed to slightly more than the previously cited 

$522 million. AOC believes that it could obtain this $1.7 million, if needed, from the 

Department of Defense, which provided the other funding for the air filtration system. AOC’s $36.9 million budget request includes $4.2 million for potential additions 

to the project’s scope (e.g., congressional seals, an orientation film, and storage 

space for backpacks) that Congress will have to consider when deciding on AOC’s 

fiscal year 2006 CVC budget request. 

AOC has not asked Congress for an additional $37 million (the difference between 

$559 million and $522 million) that we believe will likely be needed to address the 

risks and uncertainties that continue to face the project. These include, but are not 

limited to, shortages in the supply of stone, unforeseen conditions, scope gaps, further delays, possible additional requirements or time needed because of life safety 

or security changes or commissioning, unknown operator requirements, and contractor coordination issues. These types of problems have been occurring, and as of 

June 30, 2005, AOC had received proposed sequence 2 change orders whose costs 

AOC now estimates exceed the funding available in fiscal year 2005 for sequence 

2 changes by about $1.3 million. AOC’s estimate of these change order costs has 

grown by about $900,000 during the past 4 weeks.5 AOC plans to cover part of this 

potential shortfall by requesting approval from the House and Senate Committees 

on Appropriations to reprogram funds that AOC does not believe will be needed for 

other project elements. At this time, AOC does not believe that it will need additional funds in fiscal year 2005, assuming it receives reprogramming authority for 

sequence 2 changes, unless it reaches agreement with the sequence 2 contractor on 

the costs associated with 10 months’ worth of delays that have already occurred. If 

AOC needs funds for this purpose or for other reasons, it can request approval from 

the Appropriations Committees to use part of the $10.6 million that Congress ap-
73 

6Public Law 108–447, enacted in December 2004, provided that up to $10.6 million could be 

so transferred upon the approval of the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations for 

the use of the CVC project. In March 2005, AOC requested that about $4 million of these funds 

be transferred to CVC, including some funds for such work as the design of the gift shop space 

and consultant services to transition the project from construction to operations. As of June 10, 

AOC had received approval to use about $2.8 million of this $10.6 million, leaving a balance 

of about $7.8 million that can be used in the future. None of the $10.6 million is included in 

the previously cited $483.7 million. 7 AOC has requested approval to reprogram about $1.6 million from sequence 1 construction 

and the East Front Interface to fund anticipated additional costs for the House connector tunnel, 

the Jefferson Building connection to the Library of Congress tunnel, and certain security-related 

work. 

proved for transfer to the CVC project from funds appropriated for Capitol Buildings 

operations and maintenance.6

For several reasons, we believe that AOC may need additional funds for CVC construction in the next several months. These reasons include the pace at which AOC 

is receiving change order proposals for sequence 2 work, the problems AOC has encountered and is likely to encounter in finishing the project, the uncertainties associated with how much AOC may have to pay for sequence 2 delays, and uncertainty 

as to when AOC will have fiscal year 2006 funds available to it. For example, AOC 

is likely to incur additional costs for dehumidification or for additional workers to 

mitigate the expected delay in the utility tunnel. AOC may also incur more costs 

than it expects for certain activities, such as those necessary to support security 

during the remainder of the project’s construction. AOC may be able to meet these 

needs as well as the other already identified needs by obtaining approval to use 

some of the previously discussed $10.6 million and by additional reprogramming of 

funds.7 However, these funds may not be sufficient to address the risks and uncertainties that may materialize from later this fiscal year through fiscal year 2007. 

Thus, while AOC may not need all of the $37 million we have suggested be allowed 

for risks and uncertainties, we believe that, to complete the construction of CVC’s 

currently approved scope, AOC is likely to need more funds in fiscal years 2006 and 

2007 than it has already received and has requested. Although the exact amount 

and timing of AOC’s needs are not clear, we believe that between $5 million and 

$15 million of this $37 million may be required in fiscal year 2006. Effective implementation of our recommendations, including risk mitigation, could reduce AOC’s 

funding needs. 

Since the Subcommittee’s June 14 hearing, three issues related to the project’s 

costs have emerged that we believe should be brought to your attention. Discussion 

of these issues follows. 

—First, coordination within the CVC project team and between the team and 

AOC’s Fire Marshal Division has been an issue, especially with respect to the 

project’s fire protection systems. Although the CVC project team established biweekly meetings with Fire Marshal Division staff in March 2005 to enhance coordination, gaps in coordination have, as discussed, already led to uncertainty 

about whether enough time has been scheduled for fire alarm testing and for 

building occupancy inspections. Such gaps have also increased the costs associated with the fire protection system. For example, AOC recently took contractual action costing over $90,000 to redesign the mechanical system for the Jefferson Building connection to the Library of Congress tunnel to meet the Fire 

Marshal Division’s fire safety requirements. According to the Chief Fire Marshal, he was not given the opportunity to participate in the planning process 

before the design of the Jefferson Building connection was substantially completed. In addition, several fire-safety-related contract modifications and proposed change orders for additional work now total over $3.5 million. With better 

coordination between the CVC project team and the Fire Marshal Division, the 

need for some of this work might have been avoided or identified sooner, and 

had this work been identified during the original competition, the price would 

have been subject to competitive pressures that might have resulted in lower 

costs. Because of the fire protection system’s increasing costs, disagreements 

within the CVC team and between the team and the Fire Marshal Division over 

fire safety requirements, problems in scheduling fire safety activities, and other 

related issues, we suggested that AOC take appropriate steps to address the coordination of fire protection activities related to the CVC project. AOC agreed 

and has taken action. For example, starting this week, AOC’s Fire Marshal Division agreed to have a staff member work at the CVC site 2 days a week, and 

AOC CVC staff recently agreed to provide the necessary documentation to the 

Fire Marshal Division before its inspections or observations were needed. 
74 

—Second, as we indicated earlier in our testimony, we are concerned about the 

integration of planning, scheduling, and budgeting for CVC construction and operations. While the CVC project team has been overseeing CVC construction, 

other AOC staff have been assisting the operations planning contractor in planning and budgeting for CVC operations. Close coordination between the two 

groups will be especially important in the next few months, when decisions will 

likely have to be made on how to use the $7.8 million remaining from the $10.6 

million that Congress made available to the CVC project for either operations 

or construction. The Architect of the Capitol agreed to give this issue priority 

attention. 

—Finally, we are concerned that AOC may incur additional costs for interim 

measures, such as temporary walls that it may have to construct to open CVC 

to the public in September 2006. Such interim measures may be needed to 

make the project safe for visitors if some other construction work has not been 

completed. For example, AOC may have to do additional work to ensure adequate fire protection for CVC, since the House and Senate expansion spaces are 

not scheduled to be done until March 2007. In addition, AOC may have to accelerate some work to have it completed by September 15, 2006. While it is not 

necessarily unusual to use a facility for its intended purpose before all construction work is complete, we believe that it will be important for Congress to know 

what additional costs AOC expects to incur to open CVC by September 15, 2006, 

so that Congress can weigh the costs and benefits of opening the facility then 

rather than at a later date, such as March 2007, when AOC plans to complete 

the House and Senate expansion spaces. 

Recommendations for Executive Action 

To ensure that (1) Congress has sufficient information for deciding when to open 

CVC to the public and (2) planning and budgeting for CVC construction and operations are appropriately integrated, we recommend that the Architect of the Capitol 

take the following two actions: 

—In consultation with other appropriate congressional organizations, provide Congress with an estimate of the additional costs that it expects will be incurred 

to open CVC to the public by September 15, 2006, rather than later, such as 

after the completion of the House and Senate expansion spaces. 

—Promptly designate who is responsible for integrating planning and budgeting 

for CVC construction and operations and give this activity priority attention. 

Agency Comments 

AOC agreed to take the actions we are recommending. According to AOC, information on the estimated costs of the additional work necessary to open CVC to the 

public in September 2006 may not be available until this fall. In addition, AOC said 

that the recent re-engagement of the contractor assisting AOC in planning for CVC 

operations and the hiring of an executive director for CVC, which AOC plans to do 

in the next few months, are critical steps for integrating CVC construction and operations. 

Mr. Chairman, this completes our prepared statement. We would be happy to answer any questions that you or other Subcommittee Members may have. 

APPENDIX I.—CAPITOL VISITOR CENTER CRITICAL CONSTRUCTION MILESTONES, MAY 2005-JULY 

2005 

Activity Location Scheduled 

completion 

Actual completion 

Wall Stone Area 1 ............................................................................... Great Hall 1 2 ............... 5/11/05 6/06/05 

Scheduled for completion between 5/17/05 and 6/14/05: 

Wall Stone Area 3 Base Support ............................................... Great Hall 1 .................. 5/20/05 5/20/05 

Wall Stone Layout Area 4 .......................................................... Great Hall ..................... 5/20/05 6/06/05 

Saw Cut Road at 1st Street ...................................................... Utility Tunnel 1 ............. 5/24/05 6/27/05 

Wall Stone Area 4 Base Support ............................................... Great Hall 1 .................. 5/27/05 6/15/05 

Wall Stone Layout Area 5 .......................................................... Great Hall ..................... 5/27/05 5/27/05 

Masonry Wall Lower Level East ................................................. Cong. Auditorium ......... 6/03/05 5/25/05 

Wall Stone Area 5 Base Support ............................................... Great Hall 1 .................. 6/06/05 6/09/05 

Wall Stone Layout Area 6 .......................................................... Great Hall ..................... 6/06/05 6/15/05 

Drill/Set Soldier Piles at 1st Street ........................................... Utility Tunnel 1 ............. 6/08/05 ....................

Wall Stone Area 6 Base Support ............................................... Great Hall 1 .................. 6/13/05 6/17/05 

Scheduled for completion between 6/15/05 and 7/31/05: 

Wall Stone Layout Area 8 .......................................................... Great Hall ..................... 6/20/05 ....................
75 

APPENDIX I.—CAPITOL VISITOR CENTER CRITICAL CONSTRUCTION MILESTONES, MAY 2005-JULY 

2005—Continued 

Activity Location Scheduled 

completion 

Actual completion 

Masonry Wall .............................................................................. Orientation Theater ...... 6/24/05 6/28/05 

Wall Stone Layout Area 9 .......................................................... Great Hall ..................... 6/24/05 ....................

Wall Stone Area 9 Base Support ............................................... Great Hall 1 .................. 7/05/05 ....................

Wall Stone Installation Area 2 ................................................... Great Hall ..................... 7/06/05 ....................

Wall Stone Installation Area 3 ................................................... Great Hall ..................... 7/06/05 ....................

Wall Stone Installation Area 4 ................................................... Great Hall ..................... 7/15/05 ....................

Wall Stone Area 9 Base ............................................................. Great Hall 1 .................. 7/15/05 ....................

Excavate/shore Station 0–1 ....................................................... Utility Tunnel 1 ............. 7/21/05 ....................

Concrete Working Slab 1st Street .............................................. Utility Tunnel 1 ............. 7/26/05 ....................

Waterproof Working Slab Station 0–1 ....................................... Utility Tunnel 1 ............. 7/29/05 ....................

1 These activities are critical. 

2 This activity was scheduled for completion by the Subcommittee’s May 17 hearing but was not done as of that date. 

Source: AOC’s April 2005 CVC sequence 2 construction schedule for the scheduled completion dates and AOC and its construction management contractor for the actual completion dates. 

Note: Actual completion information was obtained on July 12. 

Senator ALLARD. Now, Mr. Hantman. We are proceeding. I apologize for how our morning is getting to be fractionated, but we have 

a number of votes on the floor of the Senate and you know how 

that works around here. I know you are very busy. All of you have 

very busy schedules, and I know we are disrupting them and I 

apologize for that. 

But go ahead and proceed with your testimony if you would, Mr. 

Hantman. 

STATEMENT OF ALAN M. HANTMAN, FAIA, ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL 

ACCOMPANIED BY BOB HIXON, PROJECT MANAGER, CAPITOL VISITOR 

CENTER, ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL 

Mr. HANTMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I apologize again 

for not being here for your opening statements. We will just proceed from here. I am pleased in fact to be here to discuss the 

progress that we have made since our hearing on June 14. 

Last month we discussed several important issues, including development of an overall project risk mitigation plan, our coordination with the fire marshal that Mr. Ungar just talked about, our 

continuing work on the East Capitol Street utility tunnel, the integration of our construction sequence with an operations plan, and 

finally some concerns related to stone deliveries. All those things 

I can give you an overview on. 

Regarding the last issue, though, we noted in our previous discussion that the delivery of stone to the project site in the quantities specified by the contract continues below expected levels. 

However, we have taken some important steps that we hope will 

facilitate and expedite both the fabrication and delivery of stone, 

most importantly to the Great Hall where some critical pieces are 

needed for other work to progress. I will be happy to discuss this 

with you in greater detail and I look forward to answering your 

questions regarding all of these issues. 
76 

INTERIOR CONSTRUCTION PROGRESS

But first, with the help of a few photo boards, I would like to 

show the subcommittee some of the progress that has continued 

during the past few weeks. As has been the case since the Inaugural, all the work continues inside the CVC, with the sequence 2 

contractor, Manhattan, continuing installation of ductwork and piping, all the heating, cooling, supply, waste, fire protection, and electrical systems. All 20 air-handling units have been installed, clearing the way for completion of adjacent piping and support steel 

that had been left out to provide open pathways to move the airhandling units into place. 

In the photo on the easel to my right, Mr. Chairman, you can see 

the crews are busy installing cable trays in all the ceiling spaces 

to carry fire alarm, security, and communication wire through all 

areas in the CVC. 

In the bottom photo, you can see the installation of restaurant 

plumbing that is also proceeding well. 

In the next photo board, you can see that the food service area 

is receiving metal stud framing in the top picture and wall framing 

to the front, individual rooms and equipment areas at the bottom. 

The concrete topping slab has been completed throughout the 

zone. Stone wall installation is substantially complete and plaster 

work now has become the primary finishing activity in this area 

and is also proceeding well. 

In the next board, this photo was taken last Friday in the Great 

Hall. You can see that stone work continues to be the dominant activity. Sandstone now reaches the ceiling both on the south wall 

and on the southwest wall, which encloses the south orientation 

theater. Stone installation has now begun on the north walls as 

well. 

Much of the stone for the Great Hall previously stored in the 

House expansion space has been moved to the Great Hall and is 

awaiting installation. Moving stone out of the House expansion 

space has cleared the way for Manhattan’s subcontractor, Grunley, 

to begin laying conduit in the expansion space floor slabs. Grunley 

is the subcontractor who will complete the fit-out work, Mr. Chairman, for both the House and the Senate expansion space. 

As I mentioned earlier, some critical stone pieces have not yet 

been delivered, so the contractor has resequenced some of the work. 

This is a pretty common practice and it will help explain, in some 

cases, why some of our stone work is not tracking precisely as 

scheduled. 

Now, in the orientation theaters, only minor masonry block work 

remains along the west walls of the theater at the locations of the 

door openings. At the bottom is a recent shot of the south orientation theater, with some of the interior railing walls being erected. 

Last, Mr. Chairman, in the east front, the east front extension 

spray fireproofing has been completed on all three levels. 

EXTERIOR CONSTRUCTION PROGRESS

Now, outside on the CVC roof deck, granite paver installation 

has resumed. Meanwhile, in this photo you can see that masons 

are installing the original stone base for the historic lanterns and 
77 

the fountains in the center of the east front plaza. This clears the 

way for paver installation around these elements. This base work 

was completed last week and this rendering shows a view looking 

east at one of those lanterns and how it will look upon completion. 

Stone crews have also nearly completed the installation of granite blocks along the north pedestrian ramp and work is now progressing well along the south wall. In the top photo, Mr. Chairman, 

you can see a worker applying grout between the granite blocks on 

the north wall. 

At the bottom of the next board, a mason is installing dowels 

that will be used to align and anchor the granite steps for the monumental stairs that we walked down on our last tour. In the top 

photo we see a new granite bench that is being installed on the 

plaza near First Street. So a lot of exterior finish stone work is proceeding as well. 

UTILITY TUNNEL PROGRESS

Along East Capitol Street, work on the primary utility tunnel for 

the CVC continues to progress and critical work centers around the 

utility tie-ins at Second Street and First Street installations. Despite some setbacks on Second Street related to the D.C. Water and 

Sewer Authority’s inability to operate some existing, antiquated 

water line valves, we were able to complete some utility work in 

that area and restore two-way traffic on Second Street earlier this 

week. 

ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS

I am also pleased to report that the sequence 1 contractor, 

Centex Corporation, has demobilized its on-site project trailer office 

and will complete the remaining punch list items with personnel 

who will be sent to the site for specific activities. 

Mr. Chairman, I would like to note one more important development on the administrative side of the project. I am pleased to announce that we have renewed our contract with J.M. Zell Partners, 

Ltd, our operations consultant. We met with them this week and 

they have begun an intensive effort to update and refine their earlier recommendations regarding personnel and procedures, as well 

as identifying the most critical and urgent actions necessary to ensure that all operations elements will be in place for a smooth 

opening of the Capitol Visitor Center. 

Given the fact, Mr. Chairman, that governance has not yet been 

decided between the House and the Senate, at our Capitol Preservation Commission meeting this Monday, it was determined that 

one of the best ways of proceeding, specifically to begin to get an 

executive director on board, is to refine that job description. We 

would then send it to our oversight committees with a request, basically a proposal that would allow me to advertise for this position 

using AOC general funds in advance of the 2006 budget coming in, 

so that we can start moving along, pending the availability of 

funds, to hire somebody to do this important job, and the other people as well. 

So thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am certainly more than happy to 

answer your questions as we go along. 

[The statement follows:] 
78 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ALAN M. HANTMAN, FAIA 

Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Senator Durbin, members of the committee. I am 

pleased to be here to discuss the progress we have made since our last hearing on 

June 14. 

Last month, we discussed several important issues including the development of 

an overall project risk mitigation plan, our coordination with our Fire Marshal, our 

continuing work on the East Capitol Street Utility tunnel, the integration of our 

construction sequence with an operations plan, and finally, some concerns related 

to our stone deliveries. Regarding this last issue, we noted in our previous discussion that the delivery of stone to the project site in the quantities specified by the 

contract continues below expected levels. However, we have taken some important 

steps that we hope will facilitate and expedite both the fabrication and delivery of 

stone, most importantly to the Great Hall, where some critical pieces are needed for 

other work to progress. I will be happy to discuss this with you in greater detail 

and I look forward to answering your questions regarding all of these issues, but 

first, with the help of a few photo boards, I would like to show the committee some 

of the progress that has occurred during the last few weeks. 

As has been the case since the Inaugural, the bulk of work continues inside the 

CVC with the Sequence 2 contractor, Manhattan, continuing installation of ductwork and piping for all of the heating, cooling, supply, waste water, fire protection, 

and electrical systems. All 20 air handling units have been installed, clearing the 

way for completion of adjacent piping and support steel that had been left out to 

provide open pathways to move the air handling units into place. In this photo here, 

crews are busy installing cable trays in all of the ceiling spaces to carry fire alarm, 

security and communications wiring to all areas of the CVC. 

As you can see in this photo, the Food Service Area is receiving metal stud ceiling 

framing and wall framing to define individual rooms and equipment areas. The concrete topping slab has been completed throughout this zone and stone wall installation is substantially complete. Plaster work now has become the primary finish activity in this area and is proceeding well. 

In this photo taken last Friday in the Great Hall, you can see that stone work 

continues to be the dominant activity. Sandstone now reaches the ceiling on both 

the south wall and on the southwest wall, which encloses the south orientation theater. Stone installation has now begun on the north walls. Much of the stone for 

the Great Hall, previously stored in the House expansion space, has been moved to 

the Great Hall and is awaiting installation. Moving stone out of the House expansion space has cleared the way for Manhattan’s sub-contractor, Grunley, to begin 

laying conduit in the expansion space floor slabs. Grunley is the subcontractor who 

will complete the fit-out work for both House and Senate expansion spaces. As I 

mentioned earlier, Mr. Chairman, some critical stone pieces for the Great Hall have 

not yet been delivered, so the contractor has re-sequenced some of the work. This 

is a common practice and it will help explain, in some cases, why some of our stone 

work isn’t tracking precisely as scheduled. 

In the Orientation Theaters, only minor masonry block work remains along the 

west walls of the theater at the locations of the doorway openings. Here is a recent 

shot of the south orientation theater with some of the interior walls being erected. 

Finally, in the East Front Extension, spray fireproofing is complete on all three levels. 

Outside on the CVC roof deck, granite paver installation has resumed. Meanwhile, in this photo, you can see masons installing the original base stone for the 

historic lanterns and fountains in the center of the East Front Plaza, clearing the 

way for paver installation around these elements. This base work was competed last 

week and this rendering shows a view looking east at one of those lanterns. 

Stone crews have also nearly completed the installation of granite blocks along 

the north pedestrian ramp and work is now progressing well along the south wall. 

In the top photo, you see a worker applying grout between the granite blocks on 

the north wall. At the bottom, a mason is installing dowels that will be used to align 

and anchor the granite steps for the monumental stair that flanks the north side 

of the CVC entrance. 

Along East Capitol Street, work on the primary utility tunnel for the CVC continues to progress and critical work centers around the utility tie-ins at the Second 

Street and First Street intersections. Despite some setbacks on Second Street related to the D.C. Water and Sewer Authority’s inability to operate some antiquated 

waterline valves, we were able to complete some utility work in that zone and restore two-way traffic on Second Street earlier this week. 

One last note on the construction side: I am pleased to report that the Sequence 

1 contractor, Centex Construction, has demobilized its on-site project trailer office 
79 

and it will complete the remaining punchlist items with personnel who will be sent 

to the site for specific activities. 

Before I take your questions, Mr. Chairman, I would like to note one important 

development on the administrative side of the project. I am pleased to announce 

that we have renewed our contract with the Zell Corporation, our operations consultant. They have begun an intensive effort to update and refine their earlier recommendations regarding personnel and procedures, as well as identify the most critical and urgent actions needed to ensure that all operations elements are in place 

for a smooth opening of the Capitol Visitor Center. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to report to you and the Committee on the status of the CVC project. I am happy to answer any questions you 

may have at this time. 

COST TO COMPLETE

Senator ALLARD. Well, thank you, very much, both of you, for 

your testimony. We are in a 10-minute vote and I will ask one 

question to you, Mr. Hantman, and then I will go vote. 

Mr. Hantman, I am going to give you a last shot here at our 

budget for fiscal year 2006. This will be your last opportunity to 

make some remarks in that regard. As you are aware, the House 

position is at $36.9 million. Are you comfortable with the House position or do you believe the higher Senate level of $42 million for 

the CVC will be necessary? 

Mr. HANTMAN. We have reviewed the budget. We continue to review the budget. Based on everything that we know at this time, 

the amount of money that we have requested for fiscal year 2006 

would be adequate. What we are discovering, recently, is we have 

got some issues that have come up. We have not received all of the 

proposals yet for the delay costs, so we cannot be certain that there 

might not be some added costs in the future. 

But at this point, based on everything that we are aware of, the 

$36.9 million is adequate. Again, our friends at GAO are certainly 

pointing out risks going down the road and we can only identify 

things that we see at this point in time. Certainly when they talk 

about Monte Carlo and risk analysis, the concern with unforeseen 

circumstances is still real and we respect where they are coming 

from. 

Senator ALLARD. Can you give me your commitment that by the 

time of our next hearing you and GAO will be able to provide us 

with an updated assessment of the cost to complete the CVC 

project? 

Mr. HIXON. Sir, we have contracted with McDonough Bolyard 

Peck to do the update of the cost to complete. The draft will be 

done the first part of September. We are working through the congressional work period for a number of these people. But we will 

have the draft in in the first part of September. The final report 

will not be done until October. But we will certainly be sharing all 

the data we get with the GAO so that they know what we know 

about what those expectations are and if there are any surprises. 

Senator ALLARD. Well, thank you both. 

POTENTIAL COST INCREASES

Next question, and this again is to you, Mr. Hantman. This is 

in relation to the increase in costs over the last month. According 

to the GAO, the cost estimate for potential changes worsened quite 
80 

a bit over the past month. Why did this happen and are you still 

comfortable that you will not need any additional funds? 

Mr. HANTMAN. Bob. 

Mr. HIXON. Sir, if I can respond to that, we have had two large 

change orders that, or potential change orders (PCO), that were 

generated in the last month. One of them deals with the control 

system for smoke control, fire alarm areas. We are trying to sort 

out what the value of that is. The number that is in the PCO log 

that is so large is a surprise to all of us. We did not expect it to 

be anywhere near that big and we are trying to determine if there 

are misunderstandings of scope, if the number really should be 

anything near as big as that. 

The other relates to a plug number that was put into the record 

in anticipation of what the cost might be for building temporary 

partitions and doing things associated with the occupancy of the 

CVC earlier than the completion of the expansion space. It is simply a plug number. There is no basis for the number. It was just 

a number put in there. 

Those are two very large numbers that have accounted for the 

big increase that we have had over what we have had before. We 

are still continuing to receive change orders, change order requests, 

from the contractor. We will be continuing to receive those for a 

long time. But these two large ones push the number up much 

higher than you would normally expect and they need to be reviewed. 

Senator ALLARD. Mr. Hantman. 

Mr. HANTMAN. Mr. Chairman, just a little more clarification on 

that. One of the things that Mr. Ungar indicated in his opening 

statement was the idea that if, in fact, additional funds are going 

to be spent on opening the visitor center prior to the completion of 

the expansion spaces, which we know are going to be several 

months behind since we just awarded that contract a number of 

weeks ago, and we testified to this at the last hearing. 

So when Mr. Ungar talked about letting Congress know about 

possible dollars that might be spent to, as he called it—whether it 

is accelerating the opening of the CVC, I really do not think of it 

that way. What I think of it as is, because we will still be under 

construction for the House and Senate expansion spaces after the 

CVC is completed, do we need from an emergency egress perspective to essentially put in some additional sheet rock, some additional lighting, so in fact if there is an emergency evacuation of the 

CVC that they will be able to get to the stairways in the House 

and Senate expansion space. 

So that is the plug number that has been referred to right now, 

and clearly we would not be spending those dollars unless, as Mr. 

Ungar indicates, we inform the Preservation Commission of that 

and we get approval to do so. 

FIRE MARSHAL

Senator ALLARD. We have pushed you to work with the fire marshal on what his requirements might be. We want to feel confident 

about exactly what his requirements might be, and I assume that 

you are continuing to push this dialogue with the fire marshal. 
81 

Do you feel confident at this point in time that you are there? 

And then I will ask Mr. Ungar if he is comfortable with where everything is? 

Mr. HANTMAN. Mr. Chairman, we have initiated a situation 

where the fire marshal now has a representative sitting in Bob’s 

trailer 2 days a week and we have dedicated times when the fire 

marshal’s people will be available to do checkoffs and things of that 

nature. If we are ready for it and they are not available, that would 

not happen; so that we have dedicated times and hopefully we can 

work more closely together and give them the drawings in advance, 

so they can in fact know what is coming down the road. 

Senator ALLARD. Good. 

Mr. HANTMAN. Bob, do you have any more to add? 

Mr. HIXON. We have also been meeting with the fire marshal 

every other week. So the goal is to ensure that we do have all the 

activities coordinated. As sophisticated as the smoke evacuation 

system is for the building, together with the regular fire alarm system, it is a very complicated system. So there is a great deal of coordination that is underway. We are working very well with the 

fire marshal to accommodate all of those requirements. 

The control system that we talk about is not something generated by the fire marshal as a requirement, but rather the design 

is accommodating some elements that make the system work better. So we think we are doing a good job of coordinating with them 

and we expect to be able to get through all of this planning here 

in the next 5 months. We will start checking out the systems in 

the springtime, but there is a great deal of planning that has been 

done to date and there is a great deal more to be accomplished. 

Mr. HANTMAN. Just one last point on that, Mr. Chairman. Some 

of the dollars and the coordination issues that GAO referred to relative to the fire marshal is really a result of the fact that we are 

on the cutting edge of trying to balance some of the fire safety 

issues with security issues. Security issues have never been imposed to the extent that they are now with this new visitor center, 

and sometimes they are in conflict with fire marshal criteria, which 

is why it is even more important for us to sit down and make sure 

that we have this ongoing communication. 

Senator ALLARD. I know you are serving food down in the lower 

level. If food is cooked down there and you have a lot of smoke or 

it could be a problem. 

Mr. UNGAR. Yes, Mr. Chairman. We think that the steps that 

AOC has put into place should hopefully help resolve the problems 

that have existed. There is one other step that Bob and Alan did 

not mention that they are taking that we think is also important 

and necessary, and that is that they have asked the team to go 

back and relook at this whole issue, because there were some disagreements within the team. 

So we think in addition to coordination with the fire marshal and 

having the fire marshal’s representative there, this is an important 

step. 

ACCELERATION OF WORK

There is one other issue I just wanted to clarify. When Alan was 

talking about the additional costs that might be associated with 
82 

opening the facility in September, the example he gave was correct. 

Because of the House and Senate expansion spaces not being done, 

there may have to be some temporary work. But the other issue 

that we are concerned about equally as well is acceleration of work 

between now and then, for example acceleration of work solely for 

the purpose of meeting the September 15 deadline—excuse me, target date. 

AOC is experiencing a problem with the stone work on the east 

front that had to do with some unforeseen conditions and AOC is 

anticipating that it will be able to bring the schedule back to regain 

the 24 days that have been lost. Now, if that is going to cost more 

money, though, to do that, the question is should AOC really do 

that if the only purpose is to meet the September 15 date. 

I would contrast that with the problems that AOC is experiencing on the utility tunnel with some delay there. If AOC has to 

expend additional money to recover time, there are many benefits 

to doing that, to getting that operational sooner, aside from the 

September 15 opening date. So we would distinguish between acceleration that really has a lot of benefits to acceleration that 

would solely benefit or help AOC achieve the September 15 date, 

which to our knowledge is not a congressionally mandated date. 

LEGAL ISSUES INVOLVING STONE CONTRACTOR

Senator ALLARD. You have brought up the issue of the stone 

quarry. My understanding is that we are having some supply problems with the stone. I believe you may have had to lay off one or 

two of your masons because of not enough supply coming in. I remember in a previous hearing we were wondering whether we were 

going to have enough masons there to be able to install the stone. 

So apparently there are some legal problems, and we only have 

a single source for stone and do not have an option of going to another source. We are locked in. Can you explain how it is that we 

got to that position and is there a remedy? I do not know how you 

control the length of time of the lawsuit. 

Do we have a remedy in case this gets dragged out? 

Mr. HANTMAN. Mr. Chairman, there was a hearing in Pittsburgh 

on Friday. The situation is that Manhattan Corporation has an injunction that has been issued against them, mandating that they 

use the fabricator that they are currently using and the quarry 

that they are currently using. Now, those folks have not been delivering enough stone, as we see on our schedule, for the installation 

to proceed in accordance with the schedule that we have. 

So the injunction—there was a hearing on Friday, to which I 

sent Bob Hixon and our attorney, and I also sent a letter to Manhattan expressing concern, as we discussed at our last hearing, 

about the quantity of stone being delivered and installed in a timely way. Since Bob was there, I will let him talk directly to what 

was heard and what the next step is relative to this injunction. 

Senator ALLARD. Bob. 

Mr. HIXON. At the Friday meeting, we had representatives from 

Annandale, who is the supplier of the stone and quarry as well as 

the fabricator, as well as the contractors involved, Boatman 

Magnani, who is the stone subcontractor, and Manhattan. We were 

only an interested party present there to observe and let the judge 
83 

know that we are very concerned about the delivery of the stone 

because it is not coming in in accordance with the schedule that 

Manhattan has. 

We are really supporting Manhattan in trying to ensure that 

they can get the stone required and have it installed. What came 

out of that were two items. One is the judge has said that we were 

not a party to the injunction, so that our contractual opportunities 

that we would normally have are still retained. But more importantly, what she required is a certification by the parties in the injunction that they could in fact provide stone in accordance with 

the schedule required for timely completion of the project, in accordance with the current contract completion date of September 

15. So they have required that certification. It is to be submitted 

to her by this Friday, and if someone for some reason cannot sign 

the certification she said she wanted to hear about that immediately so that she could schedule a meeting next week to talk 

about it. 

So she seems very supportive in ensuring that the actions that 

she has imposed by the injunction do not adversely affect our ability to get stone from the parties. If in fact they cannot certify and 

deliver on time, then there are other options that will have to be 

evaluated. So at this point we are looking to see if they will certify 

and we are also monitoring the delivery of stone that is coming to 

the job site to see if it meets the new schedule that the fabricator 

has provided. 

Senator ALLARD. Well, your comments are somewhat heartening. 

So I appreciate your work on that. 

MILESTONE COMPLETION

According to GAO, only 3 of the 17 critical milestones last month 

were accomplished on schedule. 

Two questions. Why have these milestones not been met; and 

how do you expect to meet your September 15 deadline as we continue to miss so many milestones? 

Mr. HIXON. Yes, sir. We are concerned with the milestones that 

we have missed. What we have had is since the April schedule was 

developed the critical path has moved around a little bit as the 

schedule became further defined. We have missed some milestones 

associated with the utility tunnel and we all understand the reason 

for those, and they are working to try and—we should be installing 

the sheeting piles on First Street here in the next couple of days 

and begin to start doing that work, which will be helpful. That is 

one of the items left over from the first chart that we had. You can 

see it marked in yellow there. 

When you look at the second chart, which talks about the activities that have been done lately, later after that—well, yes. Mr. 

Hantman has pointed out that all of those items on that first chart 

were in fact completed except the one in yellow. It is now done. So 

all those activities are in fact complete. Some of them were a few 

weeks late being completed. 

When you go to the second chart, we have two issues there. 

Again, you have the utility tunnel with some issues with the issues 

associated with the completion of that work, with the water lines 

and all. The rest of those items have to do with the wall stone in-
84 

stallation in the Great Hall area, and they have two items on the 

top associated with layout of areas 8 and 9. Those are supposed to 

be done in the next couple of days and they will be completed and 

off the chart. 

The other has to do with the wall stone in areas 3 and 4. You 

saw the picture that Mr. Hantman showed earlier of area 3, which 

is almost finished. Area 4 is hardly started. That work will not be 

done for some time. That is on the north orientation theater. That 

is going to take a number of weeks. So that one will be weeks late 

being completed. It is no longer on the critical path, but it is going 

to be much later than was reflected in the April schedule. 

Senator ALLARD. Now, on the—my question is, do you agree with 

their assessment, Mr. Ungar? 

Mr. UNGAR. Let me start, Mr. Chairman, and turn it over to Mr. 

Dorn. 

I would just like to say one thing first and that is that one of 

the issues that we have talked to AOC about during this month 

with respect to these milestones has to do with the stone installation. What we have noted in this process is that for the most part 

the installation of the wall stone is not on the project’s critical 

path, and AOC has certainly said that this is one of the most important activities in the whole project. 

So we have asked AOC to go back and reassess this whole issue, 

because it was not logical that it not be on the critical path, at 

least in our perception. So that is one issue that we think needs 

to be addressed. 

STONE INSTALLATION DELAYS

I think Mr. Dorn has some further comments on the effects of not 

meeting these milestones. 

Senator ALLARD. Mr. Dorn. 

Mr. DORN. I guess first a comment about the stone. Alan did a 

great job of sending a letter out to Manhattan about their suppliers 

and getting the stone here on time. In that letter he attached a 

couple charts that he received from the contractor that showed that 

by next week, on July 22, we should have over 85 percent of the 

stone here on site. And we are nowhere near that quantity, nowhere near it. 

The dates continue to slip. There are a number of dates on that 

chart now that show 8 to 10 weeks later than what the April baseline showed. We cannot say it is impossible for them to meet this 

September 15 target that they have got, but at what cost? That is 

what concerns me. Stone supply is still a risk. 

The stone work that they have done, while they did the food 

service area ahead of schedule, they still took longer to do it than 

they said they were going to do. So the duration was longer. You 

just moved it further ahead, and it was not critical to begin with. 

The suppliers again have not met their production for months. 

There is talk of adding a second supplier possibly at this later date, 

but at what cost is that going to be? Someone cannot start up immediately and produce the stone that you need. Second, it would 

be a noncompetitive procurement, so you have got an additional 

cost risk there. 
85 

ACCELERATION COSTS

Also, you have got the utility tunnel delay. Bernie mentioned 

that you could accelerate the construction of that tunnel to minimize temporary services and that was, I think, Bob Hixon’s idea, 

which we think is a good one, if you analyze your schedule and determine that it is going to help. It could, though, be an arbitrary 

decision and I do not think Bob will make that sort of thing. But 

you need to look at the schedule and make sure that there are not 

other concurrent delays that would overtake this thing anyway. 

Why pay to accelerate here if other delays are going to stop you 

from getting to where you need to be on a certain date. 

Your other choice is to add temporary dehumidification or temporary services. Again, we pay for that. All of these things are to 

get us to that September 15 date, which is arbitrary. 

There is talk about trying to, on the stone issue, particularly the 

east front that Bernie mentioned, that one of the ways to speed up 

the stone is to get the tickets to the contractor faster. Instead of 

getting all of your shop drawings together and sending one order 

in to the stone supplier, break it up into smaller orders and send 

it. I am not quite sure how that really helps a lot. 

It is like my Burger King analogy. If I took my three kids to 

Burger King at the beach and I saw they were slow making hamburgers, does it help me if I send the three of them to different registers to place their orders separately from me? If the hamburgers 

are slow, I am not going to get there any faster. 

There is a $1 million, roughly, placeholder for tasks that are required to get the CVC open before the expansion space. It is a 

placeholder. There is nothing really behind that yet that we are 

aware of, but we are concerned about that. 

All this rolls up into saying that we are concerned about their 

assessment of the schedule. It is similar to the optimistic statements that we heard 2 years ago with Centex. The people over 

there at the other table are sincere. They really want to make this 

happen for you. They are aggressively trying to make it happen. 

But we are concerned. 

ASSESSMENT OF TASK DURATIONS

Senator ALLARD. This has to do with the assessment of the task 

durations. At our last meeting the Architect of the Capitol agreed 

to reassess schedule task durations by the time of this hearing. 

Has a detailed evaluation of key activities been conducted and 

what were the steps you followed in conducting this reassessment? 

Mr. HANTMAN. Bob. 

Mr. HIXON. Yes, sir. The assessment was done. All but three of 

the items have been reviewed, and that is the testing and balancing—and these are complicated ones that require additional refinement of the schedule and additional evaluation—but the commissioning of the systems, the test and balancing of the HVAC system, and the fire alarm system are the three that remain. 

All other durations have been evaluated by Gilbane’s project 

managers, their superintendents, and they have done that in conjunction with Manhattan to determine that the durations are in 

fact reasonable. But this is also an activity that will continue as 
86 

the contract, the schedule, will develop further details to ensure 

that they are reasonable. There are some activities that will come 

up periodically and require reassessment. 

But we have gone through that first exercise to see if the schedule looks reasonable. The schedule from April has been accepted by 

the Government, done by Gilbane on behalf of us. So we have those 

three remaining. All others are fine at this time. 

GAO’S OPINION ON ASSESSMENT

Senator ALLARD. Mr. Ungar, do you agree that the assessment 

has been done in a comprehensive manner? 

Mr. UNGAR. Mr. Chairman, we think what was done was certainly helpful. We still have concerns, though. What we really had 

in mind in making that recommendation was a more rigorous databased objective assessment using such information as productivity, 

crew size, actual experience on the site, or industry guides. I do not 

know that the construction manager really had enough time to do 

that between hearings, but that is the sort of an assessment that 

we really had in mind. 

One of the results that we still do not feel comfortable with, for 

example, is the life safety, or occupancy inspection, activity that 

was deemed to be reasonable. Unfortunately the contractors expressed their judgment, but they did not involve the fire marshal 

at all in that assessment, and the fire marshal is critically involved 

in that activity. So we are not comfortable that without input from 

the fire marshal, that activity could be judged to be reasonable. It 

may be, but we do not have that assurance. 

Second, as another example, a number of the stone work activities in the center itself have been underway and there is some data 

available on the durations that have actually been experienced 

versus the durations that were initially estimated. In the two cases 

that we looked at where stone work is fairly far along in the interior of the center, the food service area and the Great Hall, the actual durations were exceeding the durations that were estimated. 

So to us that is not a good indicator. With the auditorium having 

a duration of 65 days, it seems unlikely to us that they are going 

to be able to meet that, given their experience. So we are concerned 

about the need to go back and do more rigorous assessments in the 

future. 

TRANSITION TO OPERATIONS

Senator ALLARD. I thank you. We have a vote now that has come 

up. 

The question I wanted to ask before we conclude has to do with 

the master schedule and the transition to operations phase. Now 

that you have your operations consultant on board, when will the 

operations tasks be incorporated into the master schedule so we 

will know when funding for operations is needed? 

Mr. HANTMAN. Mr. Chairman, as I indicated in my opening remarks, governance has not yet been determined between the House 

and the Senate for the overall project. In fact, one of the things 

that I also mentioned was, because there is no formal clearance 

that says the Architect of the Capitol will in fact be running the 

visitor center—I know the Senate has passed some legislation indi-
87 

cating that, but it has not been agreed to yet between the House 

and the Senate in a formal way. I do want to, as quickly as possible, have Zell refine the job description, the position description, 

for an executive director. He or she essentially is going to be able 

to work with all of Zell’s recommendations and refine the type of 

organization and policies and procedures that he or she would like 

to have in the visitor center. 

Senator ALLARD. If they do not make a decision, then does that 

not default to you? 

Mr. HANTMAN. I am not sure if it defaults to me. We had a meeting on Monday afternoon with the Capitol Preservation Commission and, quite frankly, there was nobody who knew how a decision 

could be made on this. 

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

What I want to do, though, Mr. Chairman, is I do want to be able 

to initiate this search now, even before 2006 dollars come in. 

Whether or not—I want to prepare this position description. I want 

to send a letter out indicating that what I propose to do is expend 

dollars, and perhaps the dollars need to be from this $2.8 million 

that we already have allocated, as opposed to future dollars in 

2006, or from the AOC general account. That way we can retain 

an executive search firm to start the process but not hire anybody 

pending the availability of funds when they come in the 2006 budget. 

So I want to jump-start this process, Mr. Chairman, start that 

search now, begin to get out there. And I just want to make sure 

that everybody is comfortable with my expending funds since I 

have not formally been told that I am in charge of the process. 

Senator ALLARD. Well, sometimes you just go ahead and do it 

and see what happens. 

Now, what position now is going to integrate all of this? 

Mr. HANTMAN. This would be the executive director, essentially. 

But again, the key point here, Mr. Chairman—— 

CONSTRUCTION TO OPERATIONS INTEGRATION

Senator ALLARD. What about the operations contractor? Would 

they have any responsibility for some of this integration? 

Mr. HANTMAN. Well, in terms of Zell Partners, Ltd., they have 

put out a blueprint essentially and they are going to be refining 

that blueprint. One of the first tasks, in addition to the job position 

description for the executive director, is for them to take a look at 

quarterly needs in terms of staffing up the project. Based on this 

analysis, they could tell us when we open in September, 3 months 

before that we should have x number of people in positions on 

board, 3 months before that, the quarter before that, we should 

have these kind of people. Therefore we are informing each other 

in terms of what we really need on board, so that when the construction is finished and the doors are ready to open that we have 

a staff there to support that. 

All of that needs to be done and that needs to be integrated with 

the construction side on Bob’s side, who maintains the master 

schedule. 
88 

Senator ALLARD. So you have taken some steps in trying to plan 

for this transition. Can you give us some more detail in the next 

hearing? 

Mr. HANTMAN. Within the next several weeks we would expect— 

we will be meeting with Zell and talking about this whole profile 

of staffing and what they see as being necessary. While we, in parallel, hopefully are able to get out on the street and start soliciting 

proposals or re ́sume ́s so that we can consider hiring an executive 

director. 

Senator ALLARD. Very good. If you can get us some more information in the next hearing, that will be one of the questions we 

will want to bring up. 

Mr. HANTMAN. Absolutely. 

SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

Senator ALLARD. That is the last question I have, and I want to 

thank all of you for participating. We plan on now having the next 

hearing on September 15 of next month. 

Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 11:58 a.m., Thursday, July 14, the subcommittee 

was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of the Chair.] 
(89) 

PROGRESS OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE 

CAPITOL VISITOR CENTER 

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 15, 2005 

U.S. SENATE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH, 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met at 10:28 a.m., in room SD–138, Dirksen 

Senate Office Building, Hon. Wayne Allard (chairman) presiding. 

Present: Senator Allard. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR WAYNE ALLARD

Senator ALLARD. I’m going to go ahead and call the subcommittee to order. We will, perhaps, have other members show up 

later on. We do have some votes that we’re looking at this morning 

that could interrupt our testimony, at which point in time we’ll put 

the subcommittee in recess and then cast our votes and be back to 

finish testimony and questions. 

We meet today for our fourth hearing this year on the progress 

of the Capitol Visitor Center. We welcome back to the witness table 

after a month’s break, Architect of the Capitol Alan Hantman, CVC 

Project Director Bob Hixon, and GAO’s representatives Bernard 

Ungar and Terrell Dorn. 

Today marks 1 year from the anticipated completion of the Capitol Visitor Center, September 15, 2006. While all of us look forward with great anticipation to the opening, the project is only 64 

percent complete, according to the Architect of the Capitol’s last 

monthly report. Progress is slower than expected, illustrated by the 

fact that only 7 of the 16 selected milestones scheduled for completion by today have actually been completed, and none were on 

time. 

While AOC remains confident in their September 2006 projected 

completion date, GAO has become even more pessimistic in its projections, based on their observations to date. GAO has found that 

there continue to be problems with the schedule, such as optimistic 

durations of certain activities and various requirements have not 

been fully reflected in the schedule. According to GAO, the construction contractor would need to work more than 7 days a week 

for the next year to make up for lost time and meet the September 

15 deadline, and that assumes no additional problems, going forward. In addition, despite a commitment by AOC to have completed a risk-mitigation plan by today’s hearing, such a plan is not 

finished. While we recognize progress has been made since our last 
90 

hearing, significant concerns, most of which we’ve discovered over 

the past several months, have not been resolved. 

In addition to discussing the CVC project, I have asked GAO to 

brief us on progress with the construction project at the Capitol 

Power Plant, referred to as the west refrigeration plant expansion. 

The $100 million project is critical to ensure adequate cooling capacity for the Capitol campus, including the Capitol Visitor Center. 

The expansion project must be completed in a timely way and without disruption to service. We want to be sure this project is under 

control. 

Before turning to my ranking member, I’d like to make sure our 

witnesses know of our plans for the next CVC hearing, which is 

scheduled now for October 18, same place and same time. At that 

time, we will look forward to getting an update on the latest estimate of the cost to complete the project currently in draft and 

being reviewed by GAO. 

I will now turn to you, Mr. Hantman, for your testimony, to be 

followed by GAO’s Bernard Ungar. 

Proceed, Mr. Hantman. 

STATEMENT OF ALAN M. HANTMAN, FAIA, ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL 

ACCOMPANIED BY BOB HIXON, PROJECT DIRECTOR, CAPITOL VISITOR CENTER, ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL 

Mr. HANTMAN. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and thank you. 

Thank you for this opportunity to update you on the progress of the 

Capitol Visitor Center project and the key issues we discussed at 

our last meeting, on July 14, including the status of our overall 

project schedule and the risk-mitigation plan. 

But, first, with the help of some recent photos from the project 

site, let me bring you up to date on the status of some specific 

areas of the construction. These photos, however, Mr. Chairman, 

can’t truly depict the real progress made, the quality of the work, 

its true complexity, or the wonderful feeling of the spaces in this 

historic addition to our Capitol. 

Since, Mr. Chairman, so much good work has occurred since you 

last visited the project, I’d welcome the opportunity to take you and 

members of the subcommittee on an inspection tour to see this 

progress firsthand. 

On this first board, you see the Great Hall. Stone has been installed up to the ceiling on the north and the south walls and the 

west walls. You can glimpse the completed stonework behind the 

scaffolding. Those scaffolds will remain in place to facilitate the installation of the two large skylights, and that work is going to be 

beginning in November. 

Stone is also going up on three walls and around the columns, 

as shown on this photo, in the Orientation Theaters. With nearly 

20 stonemason teams now on site, we have stonework occurring 

concurrently in the Great Hall, both Orientation Theaters, and the 

Congressional Auditorium. Additional stonework is occurring on 

the roof deck of the CVC. 

On this board, you can see historic preservation contractors busy 

reinstalling the original historic stone for the fountains and lan-
91 

terns, which were designed by Frederick Law Olmsted in the 

1870s. 

Meanwhile, Mr. Chairman, throughout the facility, as you see on 

this board, workers continue to install mechanical, electrical, and 

plumbing systems, apply plaster, place concrete, and pull telecommunications wiring in the Congressional Auditorium and other 

areas. 

Finally, I am pleased to report that fit-out work in both the 

House and Senate expansion spaces is proceeding well and the contractor is moving aggressively in both those areas. On this board, 

you can see some of the activities occurring as crews install 

underslab conduit over here, ductwork and place concrete for the 

floor topping in those spaces. 

Mr. Chairman, in addition to the physical work being done on 

the CVC, we’ve also been providing Members and their staffs and 

other professionals with a firsthand look at the work being done on 

the project. As you may have read in last week’s Roll Call article 

entitled, ‘‘Off Hill, CVC is ‘Truly Impressive,’ ’’ other elected officials, foreign dignitaries, and construction professionals have been 

impressed by the significance of this project. County Executive 

Chris Coons from New Castle County, Delaware, was quoted as 

saying he was ‘‘blown away’’ during his visit to the CVC, and that 

they were, quote, ‘‘truly impressed with the complexity of the building site, with the way it was being integrated into the worksite of 

the Capitol, and how it fits into a major historic property.’’ We’re 

pleased to be able to share our lessons learned with others who are 

undertaking similar, although perhaps less complex, projects. 

As you can see, Mr. Chairman, there’s a tremendous amount of 

activity occurring throughout the facility. We expect the pace of 

work to increase further as more contractors involved in the installation of finishing materials come onboard in the months ahead. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF ALAN HANTMAN

While we were working aggressively to meet the contract completion date, as we’ve discussed at prior hearings there are three critical areas currently impacting the sequence to contractors’ work 

and schedule. 

First, stone installation in the east front has been delayed in the 

development of shop drawings due to differing site conditions and 

the necessary design revisions. And there are other causes, as well. 

In an effort to minimize or eliminate the current delay, the contractor has divided his stone-shop drawing submittal into two 

parts. He submitted his lower-level shop drawings. The design architect has expedited the review, trying to mitigate the delay there, 

as well. And the contractor is also considering alternatives in stone 

fabrication and installation to further mitigate delay. 

Second, stone delivery and installation. The project schedule also 

has been impacted by the reduced number of masons installing 

wall stone in the Great Hall and the surrounding corridors. The 

number of stonemasons had dropped off in past months due to slow 

stone deliveries and missing key pieces of wall stone. The contractor has worked with his stone subcontractor to double the number of stonemasons in the past month to install the stone. 
92 

Now, while the court injunction we discussed in July is still in 

place, deliveries of wall stone are approximately 80 percent of the 

scheduled amounts. Although key pieces are sometimes still missing to complete a wall elevation, we’ve experienced a significant improvement in stone installation in recent weeks. The contractor 

continues to actively work to resolve this issue and recover time. 

Third, utility tunnel. Differing site conditions, the resulting design revisions, and other issues have delayed completion of construction of the utility tunnel by 1 month, from the end of October 

2005 to the end of November 2005. That delay in completion of the 

tunnel may, in turn, delay the installation of piping for delivery of 

steam and chilled water until March 2006. If this is the case, the 

required temperature and humidity controls necessary to install 

building finishes such as millwork, acoustical ceiling panels, and 

acoustical tile could be impacted. 

The excavation contractor is working additional hours each day 

and Saturdays to make up as much time as possible. We continue 

to evaluate other alternatives to avoid or minimize delays, including providing temporary temperature control and dehumidification 

for the Orientation Theaters, and food-service areas, so millwork 

can proceed on schedule. 

Of future concern, Mr. Chairman, also reflected in the current 

schedule, is the very complicated process of commissioning the 

building, and especially the fire safety system, which is scheduled 

for next summer. We’re coordinating the process with the contractor, the commissioning agent, and the fire marshal. The latest 

draft of the project schedule includes a large number of additional 

commissioning detail activities. The addition of those activities to 

the schedule moves the project completion date beyond the contract 

term. This process is being evaluated with all parties to ensure all 

activities have reasonable logic and durations and we can identify 

potential delay issues and resolve them well in advance of commissioning beginning. While the current overall construction schedule 

reflects a completion date after September 2006, the project team 

continues to work to try to recover time in all pertinent project activities to stay within the contract period. 

Mr. Chairman, clearly there are many areas of risk that need to 

be mitigated to achieve the contract completion date. A risk assessment of the CVC was conducted last month, and a list of risk items 

was developed. Risk-handling plans for each of these items are currently being developed, and each plan will be managed by having 

the items reviewed in an ongoing basis. Items resolved will be 

moved from the list each month, any new risk items that are identified will be added. 

Taking these factors into account, we have asked the contractor 

to submit his recovery plan to reflect the necessary revised schedule logic and durations so that the schedule will, again, help facilitate the timely completion, per the contract. That effort, Mr. Chairman, will take a number of weeks to complete. And in addition to 

our own risk assessment, as you know, GAO also continues to point 

out similar risks to the project schedule. 

While the construction team is creatively and responsibly trying 

to recover lost time and meet the September 2006 contract completion date, there may well be items, Mr. Chairman, related to com-
93 

missioning, the fine-tuning of mechanical systems, and punchlist 

items that current evaluations indicate could extend beyond then. 

Therefore, in recognizing these risks, for planning purposes, it 

would be prudent to aim for December 2006 to have full building 

operations tested and ready. In parallel with that work, the visitor 

services operations would be under development and preparation, 

including staffing activities. The completion date for the House and 

Senate expansion space remains unchanged at March 2007. 

With respect to visitor services operations, we’ve been working 

with our CVC operations consultant to refine the staffing plan they 

developed. We’re coordinating the plan with the construction schedule to facilitate the hiring and training of personnel who are needed to manage visitor center services within the CVC. Concurrently, 

we have already presented a draft of the staffing plan, required in 

legislation by December of this year, to the Capitol Preservation 

Commission. We look forward to working with the Appropriations 

Committee to continue refining it and finalizing it, in coordination 

with the construction schedule, to assure that people are hired 

when needed, but not too early. 

Additionally, we’re working with the Capitol Preservation Commission on a draft position description for the CVC executive director. Together, we hope to move the process forward so we can advertise the position and have that person onboard by January 2006. 

The executive director would then hire the required visitor services 

staff and work to put policies and procedures in place to allow for 

the opening of the CVC. The hiring of building operations staff has 

already begun. 

Regarding the project budget, the CVC cost-to-complete is being 

updated, as you mentioned, by the independent firm of McDonough 

Bolyard Peck. The preliminary data has been submitted and is 

being reviewed and refined, and we’ll be able to discuss them in detail at our next hearing. 

One last note, Mr. Chairman, to let you know that Bob Hixon 

has just received a wonderful honor. He has been made a Fellow 

of the Construction Managers Association of America. If I may 

quote from their brochure here, ‘‘The Fellows designation is one of 

CMAA’s highest honors conferred upon industry leaders who have 

made significant contributions to their organizations, the industry, 

and their profession. The following leaders of the construction management community are being named to the 2005 Class of Fellows, 

bringing the number of individuals who’ve received this designation 

to 27 since CMAA’s inception in 1982.’’ So, that’s—out of some 

3,000 or so members, Bob is 1 of 27 Fellows, and we’re very proud 

of him. It’s well deserved. It’s nice to know that his recognized expertise is being brought to our project. 

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my opening remarks. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ALAN M. HANTMAN, FAIA 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to update you on the progress of 

the Capitol Visitor Center project and the key issues that were discussed at the last 

meeting on July 14, including the status of the CVC overall project schedule and 

risk mitigation plan. But first, let me bring you up to date on the status of some 

specific areas of the construction. 
94 

In the Great Hall, we have stone installed up to the ceiling on the north, south, 

and west walls. Scaffolds will remain in place inside the Great Hall to facilitate the 

installation of the two large skylights, and that work will occur in November. 

Also in the Great Hall, work is progressing on the east wall and the areas adjacent to the water features at the base of the two grand staircases. Currently, workers are assembling the plumbing infrastructure for those water features. 

Stone is also going up on three walls and around the columns in the south orientation theater. With nearly 20 stone mason teams now on site, stone work is occurring concurrently in the Great Hall, both orientation theaters and the Congressional auditorium. 

Additional stone work is occurring on the roof deck of the CVC. The historic preservation contractor is busy re-installing the original historic stone for the fountains 

and lanterns which were designed by Fredrick Law Olmsted in the 1870s. 

Meanwhile, throughout the facility, workers continue to install mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems; apply plaster; place concrete, and pull telecommunications wiring in the Congressional auditorium and other areas. 

Finally, I am pleased to report that fit-out work in both the House and Senate 

expansion spaces is proceeding well and the contractor is moving aggressively in 

both those areas. Crews are at work in both the House and Senate spaces installing 

underslab conduit and ductwork and placing concrete for the floor topping slabs. 

In addition to the physical work being done on the CVC, the CVC project office 

has also been providing Members, their staffs, and other professionals with a firsthand look at the work being done on the project. As you may have read in last 

week’s Roll Call article entitled, ‘‘Off Hill, CVC is ‘Truly Impressive,’ ’’ other elected 

officials, foreign dignitaries, and construction professionals have been impressed by 

the significance of this project. 

County Executive Chris Coons from New Castle County, Delaware, was quoted as 

saying he was ‘‘blown away’’ during his visit to the CVC, and that they were ‘‘truly 

impressed with the complexity of the building site, with the ways it was being integrated into the work site of the Capitol and how it fits into a major historic property.’’ 

We are pleased to be able to share our lessons learned with others who are undertaking similar, although less complex, projects. 

There is a tremendous amount of activity occurring throughout the facility and 

we expect the pace of work to increase further as more contractors involved in the 

installation of finishing materials come on board in the months ahead. Out on East 

Capitol Street, where the primary utility tunnel is being constructed, the contractor 

is working extra hours each day and on Saturdays in an effort to recover some time 

that was lost during the execution of the work in this area. As has been mentioned 

at previous hearings, the timely completion of the utility tunnel is one of the factors 

critical to the contractor’s ability to meet their contract completion date for September 15, 2006. 

While we are working aggressively to meet the contract completion date, as we 

have discussed at prior hearings, there are three critical areas currently impacting 

the Sequence 2 contractor’s work and schedule. They are: 

—Stone installation in the East Front has been delayed in the development of 

shop drawings from the end of June to mid-August due to differing site conditions and the consequential design revisions. In an effort to minimize or eliminate the current delay, the contractor has broken his stone shop drawing submittal into two parts. He has submitted his lower level shop drawings, and the 

design architect has expedited the review to mitigate delay. The contractor is 

considering alternatives in stone fabrication and installation to further mitigate 

delay. 

—The project schedule also has been impacted by the reduced number of masons 

installing wall stone in the Great Hall and the surrounding corridors. The number of stone masons had dropped off in the past months due to slow stone deliveries and missing key pieces of wall stone. The contractor has worked with his 

stone subcontractor to double the number of stone masons in the past month 

to install the stone currently available. While the court injunction we discussed 

in July is still in place, deliveries of wall stone are approximately 80 percent 

of the scheduled amounts. Although key pieces are sometimes still missing to 

complete a wall elevation, we have experienced significant improvement in 

stone installation in recent weeks. 

—Differing site conditions and the resulting design revisions, along with other 

issues, have delayed completion of construction of the utility tunnel by one 

month from the end of October 2005 to the end of November 2005. That delay 

in completion of the tunnel may delay the installation of piping for delivery of 

steam and chilled water until March 2006. If this is the case, the required tem-
95 

perature and humidity controls necessary to install building finishes such as 

millwork, acoustical ceiling panels, and acoustical wall panels, would be delayed. The excavation contractor is working additional hours each day and Saturdays to make up as much time as possible. We are also evaluating other alternatives to avoid or minimize delays in completion of the utility tunnel and 

piping installation, and providing temporary temperature control and 

dehumidification for the orientation theaters and food service areas so millwork 

can proceed on schedule. 

A future concern also reflected in the current schedule is the very complicated 

process of commissioning the building, and especially the fire safety system. We are 

continuing to coordinate the process with the contractor, the commissioning agent, 

and the Fire Marshal. The latest draft of the project schedule includes a large number of additional commissioning detail activities. The addition of these activities to 

the schedule moves the project completion date beyond the contract term. This process is being evaluated with all parties to ensure all activities have reasonable logic 

and durations. While the current construction schedule reflects a completion date 

after September 15, 2006, the project team continues to work to try to recover time 

in all pertinent project activities to stay within the contract period. 

There are, clearly, many areas of risk that need to be mitigated to achieve the 

contract completion date. A risk assessment of the CVC was conducted last month 

and a list of risk items was developed and will be evaluated. Risk handling plans 

for each of these items are being developed currently. Each risk mitigation plan will 

be managed by having the items reviewed monthly by the team with one-fourth of 

the items addressed in depth each week. Items resolved will be removed from the 

list each month and any new risk items that are identified will be added. 

Taking these factors into account, we have asked the contractor to submit his recovery plan to reflect the necessary revised schedule logic and durations so that the 

schedule will again help facilitate the timely completion per the contract. That effort 

will take a number of weeks to complete. In addition to our own risk assessment, 

as you know, GAO also continues to point out similar risks to the project schedule. 

While the construction team is striving to recover lost time and meet the September 

15, 2006, contract completion date, there may well be items related to commissioning, fine tuning of mechanical systems and punch list items that could extend 

beyond the CVC contract completion date. Therefore, for planning purposes, a December 2006 date would be prudent to aim for to have full building operations tested and ready. The completion date for the House and Senate Expansion Space remains unchanged at March 2007. 

Regarding the project budget, the CVC Cost-to-Complete is being updated by the 

independent firm of McDonough, Bolyard, Peck. The preliminary data has been submitted and is being reviewed and refined. 

We also have been working with our CVC visitor services operations consultant 

to refine the staffing plan they have developed. We are coordinating the plan with 

the construction schedule to facilitate the hiring and training of personnel who are 

needed to manage visitor services within the CVC. Concurrently, we have presented 

a draft of the staffing plan, required in legislation by December of this year, to the 

Capitol Preservation Commission and we will be working with the Appropriations 

Committees to finalize it as soon as possible. 

Additionally, a draft position description for the executive director has been submitted to the Capitol Preservation Commission. It is important to move the process 

along so we can advertise the position and have that person on board by January 

2006. The executive director would then hire the required staff and work to put policies and procedures in place to allow for the opening of the CVC. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my opening remarks. I would be happy to answer 

any questions you may have. 

Senator ALLARD. Thank you for your testimony. And I would also 

like to join in congratulating you, Mr. Hixon, for the award that 

you received. 

Mr. Ungar. 
96 

STATEMENT OF BERNARD L. UNGAR, DIRECTOR, PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE, GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE 

ACCOMPANIED BY TERRELL DORN, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, PHYSICAL 

INFRASTRUCTURE, GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE 

Mr. UNGAR. Mr. Chairman, we’re pleased to be here again to assist the subcommittee in its oversight. We’re again accompanied by 

our team members, who are identified in our statement. We really 

appreciate their help and assistance. And, hopefully, again they’ll 

help us—bail us out if we get some tough questions. 

What I’d like to do is give you a brief overview of where we think 

we are on the project, how we got there, and what needs to be done 

from our perspective, and ask Mr. Dorn to hone in on a very few 

specific points that he’d like to focus on to give you a greater appreciation for some of the issues here that we’re dealing with. 

As Mr. Hantman indicated, progress is certainly continuing to be 

made on the project—there is no question about that—in a number 

of areas. At the same time, problems are continuing to occur with 

stonework and the utility tunnel, where actual delays have been occurring. 

What’s really been happening over the last couple of months 

since your last hearing is this. The delays have continued. As a result of one of the recommendations that we previously made to 

AOC, the project team has been looking at the schedule, particularly some activities with respect to the heating, air-conditioning, 

and ventilation system, and the fire protection system. We had previously noted that these activities appeared to have unrealistically 

short durations in the schedule. During the process of the team’s 

assessment, the team identified a number of activities, detailed activities, that were not in the schedule that would require a substantial amount of time on their initial assessment to undertake. 

Then they came up with their August schedule, which identified a 

slippage in the expected completion date from November 2006, 

which was the completion date shown in the schedule discussed at 

the last hearing, until the end of February 2. They recognized, 

however, that the activities they added had not yet been evaluated 

in-depth; that is, it was the first go-around. And that basically had 

to do with the added activities and some of the slippages to date. 

At the same time that AOC was going through its evaluation, we 

were doing our risk assessment of the schedule. We were identifying the same types of things that AOC was identifying, meaning 

that there were significant problems with the schedule with respect 

to the heating, air-conditioning, and ventilation system and the fire 

protection system which would add time to the schedule. In addition to that, we also found a number of problems that we had identified previously with optimistic durations, and that included the 

stonework, the utility tunnel, and some of the finishing work. We 

had identified all of these issues, back in early 2004, as areas that 

really needed to be assessed. And, unfortunately, there wasn’t a 

real aggressive assessment of those until after the hearing process 

started. But we are certainly pleased that that’s now underway. 

So, all these things were happening at the same time, and now 

we’re at a situation where, because of all the uncertainty associated 

with the schedule because of the added activities and the concerns 

and problems that were occurring, a definitive completion date is 
97 

not possible to predict at this point. We do have a general sense 

of when we think the basic project is going to be completed, pending a reevaluation. And our sense right now, given all the information that we see, is: a completion date of sometime in the spring/ 

summer of 2007 is more likely at this point than the September 

date that AOC is currently focusing on. 

We got here because, at least in our view, initially the sequence 

2 schedule did not have sufficient detail to determine whether or 

not it could be achieved. We raised this concern when the sequence 

2 schedule was first proposed. We had a great deal of concern 

about that, about the degree of detail and the level of resource 

loading that was there. We raised these concerns to AOC and to 

Gilbane. At that point in time, there was a different management 

team there, and, basically, they just didn’t move forward with our 

suggestion at that time that they reevaluate those activities. 

At this time, AOC believes that it can recover a significant 

amount of time that’s been added to the schedule. And we don’t 

disagree that some time is likely to be able to be recovered, because 

they could do some resequencing. At the same time, we have a 

number of concerns about some adverse consequences that could 

result from various steps that might be taken to recover time or 

accelerate the project or perhaps take some shortcuts, which we 

have identified in our statement. 

And that leads me to some very specific actions that we think are 

critical and need to be taken from this point forward: 

First, we believe that AOC and the rest of the team need to do 

a very rigorous evaluation of the schedule—not only the areas that 

they’ve added, but the other areas in the schedule, too. And we’ve 

given AOC a list of activities that we continue to believe have optimistic durations, and they’re the same activities that we’ve identified over a period of time: the stonework, the utility tunnel, and 

some of the finishing work. And there are a number of other areas. 

Second, we believe that AOC needs to have strong management 

controls in place to really look at the quality of the project when 

more time is being spent—if they’re going to work nights and weekends, add shifts, or take some shortcuts that hopefully will not be 

taken, but could be taken, to meet some of the timeframes. Such 

steps could impact the safety of the facility, from a fire and life 

safety standpoint, the efficiency of the work, the functionality of 

the equipment, or worker safety. So, we think it’s very important 

that, from this point forward, AOC and Gilbane really focus on 

these types of potential problems. 

Third, we think that it’s very important to have a reasonable 

amount of time between the end of construction and the beginning 

of operations, the opening of the facility, to allow for some unexpected delays or problems or operations preparation. 

Fourth, we think that it’s very important that AOC and its construction manager document and determine the causes of delays 

and take appropriate action and that they notify Congress of any 

planned acceleration steps or scope changes that might be made to 

meet the schedule. 

And, finally, that AOC expedite efforts to replace the director of 

the Capitol Power Plant, who left several months ago, I believe in 

May. It’s a very important position. It’s not only important to the 
98 

1See GAO, Capitol Visitor Center: Update on Status of Project’s Schedule and Costs, GAO– 

05–910T (Washington, D.C.: July 14, 2005). 2 AOC set September 15, 2006, as the contractual date for completing the base project’s construction and for opening the CVC facility to the public. The House and Senate expansion spaces 

were scheduled to be completed after that date. AOC set the September contract completion date 

in November 2004, when it reached agreement with the contractor on a new date for starting 

sequence 2 that reflected the delays experienced on sequence 1. On September 6, 2005, AOC 

informed Capitol Preservation Commission representatives that it still expected the base 

project’s construction to be substantially complete on September 15, 2006, but was postponing 

the date for opening the facility to the public to December 15, 2006, so that it could complete 

system tests, minor punch-list work, and preparations for operations. 

CVC that the west refrigeration plant that you referred to is up 

and running, but that the other issues that exist at the plant be 

addressed and that there be a proven, talented leader in place 

there as soon as possible. 

And, with that, I’d like to ask Mr. Dorn to focus in on a few specific points. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF BERNARD L. UNGAR

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: We are pleased to be here 

today to assist the Subcommittee in monitoring progress on the Capitol Visitor Center (CVC) project. Our remarks will focus on (1) the Architect of the Capitol’s (AOC) 

progress in managing the project’s schedule since the Subcommittee’s July 14 hearing on the project; (2) our estimate of a general time frame for completing the base 

project’s construction and the preliminary results of our assessment of the risks associated with AOC’s July 2005 schedule for the base project; and (3) the project’s 

costs and funding, including the potential impact of scheduling issues on cost.1 However, we will not, as originally planned, provide specific estimated completion dates 

because AOC’s contractors revised the schedule in August to reflect recent delays, 

but AOC has not yet evaluated the revised schedule. AOC believes that the time 

added to the schedule by its contractors is unreasonable. Until AOC completes its 

evaluation and we assess it, any estimates of specific completion dates are, in our 

view, tentative and preliminary. Similarly, we will wait until the schedule is stabilized to update our November 2004 estimate of the cost to complete the project. 

Currently, AOC and its consultant, McDonough Bolyard Peck (MBP), are still developing their cost-to-complete estimates. 

Our remarks today are based on our review of schedules and financial reports for 

the CVC project and related records maintained by AOC and its construction management contractor, Gilbane Building Company; our observations on the progress of 

work at the CVC construction site; and our discussions with CVC project staff (including AOC, its major CVC contractors, and representatives of MBP), AOC’s Chief 

Fire Marshal, and officials responsible for managing the Capitol Power Plant. We 

also reviewed applicable appropriations legislation. Appendix I provides more detailed information on our assessment of the project’s schedule. We did not perform 

an audit; rather, we performed our work to assist Congress in conducting its oversight activities. 

In summary, although AOC and its construction contractors have continued to 

make progress since the Subcommittee’s July 14 CVC hearing, several delays have 

occurred and more are expected. These delays could postpone the base project’s completion significantly beyond September 15, 2006, the date targeted in AOC’s July 

2005 schedule.2 Although not yet fully reviewed and accepted by AOC, the schedule 

that AOC’s contractors revised in August 2005 shows February 26, 2007, as the base 

project’s completion date. The contractors reported this revised date largely because 

some key activities associated with the heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning 

(HVAC) and fire protection systems had not been included in previous schedules 

and because delays were occurring, both in constructing the utility tunnel and in 

completing interior stonework. 

According to our preliminary analysis of the project’s July 2005 schedule, the base 

project is more likely to be completed sometime in the spring or summer of 2007 

than by September 15, 2006. Unless the project’s scope is changed or extraordinary 

actions are taken, the base project is likely to be completed later than September 

15, 2006, for the reasons cited by the contractors and for other reasons, such as the 

optimistic durations estimated for a number of activities and the risks and uncertainties facing the project. AOC believes that the contractors added too much time 
99 

to the schedule in August for activities not included in the schedule and that it can 

expedite the project by working concurrently rather than sequentially and by taking 

other actions. While AOC may not need all of the time added for the missing activities, CVC project personnel believe that more time will be needed than is currently 

scheduled for other activities, such as the utility tunnel, interior finishes and 

stonework, and the East Front. Because of the uncertainty surrounding the base 

project’s construction schedule, we cannot estimate a specific completion date at this 

time. Additionally, we are concerned about actions that have been, or could be, proposed to accelerate work to meet the September 15, 2006, target date. While such 

actions could expedite the project and save some costs, they could also increase 

other costs or adversely affect the CVC facility’s quality, functionality, or life safety 

provisions. The project’s schedule also raises a number of management concerns, including the potential for delays caused by not allowing enough time to address potential problems or to complete critical activities. Since the Subcommittee’s July 14 

hearing, we have discussed several actions with AOC that we believe are needed 

to address the CVC project’s schedule problems and our concerns. These actions include 

—evaluating the project’s revised schedule, including the activity durations, to ensure that adequate time is provided; 

—analyzing the impact of various factors on the schedule and the adequacy of the 

resources scheduled to be applied to meet completion dates; 

—carefully considering the costs, benefits, and risks associated with proposals to 

accelerate work or reduce its scope and ensuring that appropriate management 

controls are in place to prevent or minimize the possible adverse consequences 

of such actions, if taken; 

—proposing a CVC opening date that allows reasonable time between the completion of construction and the facility’s opening to address problems that may 

arise; 

—ensuring that delays and their causes are adequately determined and documented on an ongoing basis; and 

—advising Congress of any plans for accelerating work or reducing its scope so 

that Congress can be involved in such decisions. 

AOC agreed with our suggestions. 

Fiscal year 2006 appropriations have provided sufficient funds to cover AOC’s request for CVC construction funding as well as additional funds for some risks and 

uncertainties that may arise, such as costs associated with additional sequence 2 

delays or unexpected conditions. Although sequence 2 delays have been occurring, 

the extent to which the government is responsible for their related costs is not clear 

at this time. Additional funding may be necessary if the government is responsible 

for significant delay-related costs or if significant changes are made to the project’s 

design or scope or to address unexpected conditions. In addition, we and AOC identified some CVC construction activities that received duplicate funding. AOC has 

discussed this issue with the House and Senate Appropriations Committees. 

Work on the Project Is Progressing, but Delays Continue 

AOC and its contractors have continued to make progress on the project since the 

Subcommittee’s July 14 hearing. However, mostly because some key activities associated with the HVAC and fire protection systems were not included in earlier 

schedules and because delays occurred in installing stonework and excavating the 

utility tunnel, the sequence 2 contractor’s August schedule shows the expected completion date for the base project as February 26, 2007. As discussed at the Subcommittee’s July 14 hearing, AOC recognized some delays in its June 2005 schedule, 

which showed the base project’s expected completion date as October 19, 2006. Although AOC has not evaluated the contractor’s August schedule, it does not believe 

that so much additional time will be needed. Furthermore, as discussed in the next 

section, AOC maintains that work could be accelerated to meet the September 15, 

2006, target date. 

Project’s Schedule, Including Possible Actions to Accelerate Work, Raises Management Concerns 

According to our analysis of the CVC project’s schedule, the base project is unlikely to be completed by the September 15, 2006, target date for several reasons. 

AOC believes that it could take actions to complete the project by then, but these 

actions could have negative as well as positive consequences. These and other schedule-related issues raise a number of management concerns. We have discussed actions with AOC officials that we believe are necessary to address problems with the 

schedule and our concerns. AOC generally agreed with our suggestions. 
100 

3 Also see, for example, GAO, Capitol Visitor Center: Effective Schedule Management and Updated Cost Information Needed, GAO–05–811T (Washington, D.C.: June 14, 2005). 4This analysis assumes the 60-day delay shown in the project’s July schedule. 

5GAO, Capitol Visitor Center: Priority Attention Needed to Manage Schedules and Contracts, 

GAO–05–714T (Washington, D.C.: May 17, 2005). 

Base Project’s Construction Is Likely to Be Completed Later Than Scheduled 

for Several Reasons 

For several reasons, we believe that the base project is more likely to be completed sometime in the spring or summer of 2007 than by September 15, 2006: 

—As we have previously testified, AOC’s sequence 2 contractor, Manhattan Construction Company, has continued to miss its planned dates for completing activities that we and AOC are tracking to assist the Subcommittee in measuring 

the project’s progress. For example, as of September 8, the contractor had completed 7 of the 16 selected activities scheduled for completion before today’s 

hearing (see app. II); however, none of the 7 activities was completed on time. 

Unforeseen site conditions, an equipment breakdown, delays in stone deliveries, 

and a shortage of stone masons for the interior stonework were among the reasons given for why the work was not completed on time.3 Our analysis of the 

sequence 2 contractor’s production pace between November 2004 and July 2005 

indicates that the base project’s construction is unlikely to be finished by September 15, 2006, if the contractor continues at the same pace or even accelerates the work somewhat. In fact, at the current or even a slightly accelerated 

pace, the base project would be completed several months after September 15, 

2006. To finish the base project’s construction by that date, our analysis shows 

that the sequence 2 contractor would have to recover 1 day for every 8 remaining days between July 2005 and September 2006 and could incur no further 

delays.4

—We continue to believe that the durations scheduled for a number of sequence 

2 activities are unrealistic. According to CVC project team managers and staff, 

several activities, such as constructing the utility tunnel; testing the fire protection system; testing, balancing, and commissioning the HVAC system; installing 

interior stonework; and finishing work in some areas are not likely to be completed as indicated in the July 2005 schedule. Some of these are among the activities whose durations we identified as optimistic in early 2004 and that we 

and AOC’s construction management contractor identified as contributing most 

to the project’s schedule slippage in August 2005; these activities also served 

as the basis for our March 2004 recommendation to AOC that it reassess its 

activity durations to see that they are realistic and achievable at the budgeted 

cost. Because AOC had not yet implemented this recommendation and these activities were important to the project’s completion, we suggested in our May 17 

testimony before the Subcommittee that AOC give priority attention to this recommendation.5 AOC’s construction management contractor initiated such a review after the May 17 hearing. Including more time in the schedule to complete 

these activities could add many more weeks to the project’s schedule. 

—AOC’s more aggressive schedule management is identifying significant omissions of activities and time from the sequence 2 schedule. AOC’s approach, 

though very positive, is coming relatively late in the project. For example, several detailed activities associated with testing, balancing, and commissioning 

the CVC project’s HVAC and fire protection system were added to the schedule 

in July and August, extending the schedule by several months. AOC believes, 

and we agree, that some of this work may be done concurrently, rather than 

sequentially as shown in the August schedule, thereby saving some of the added 

time. However, until more work is done to further develop this part of the 

schedule, it is unclear how much time could be saved. Furthermore, the July 

schedule does not appear to include time to address significant problems with 

the HVAC or fire alarm systems should they occur during testing. 

—In August 2005, CVC project personnel identified several risks and uncertainties facing the project that they believed could adversely affect its schedule. Examples include additional unforeseen conditions in constructing the utility and 

House Connector tunnels; additional delays in stonework due to slippages in 

stone deliveries, shortages of stone masons, or stop-work orders responding to 

complaints about noise from work in the East Front; and problems in getting 

the HVAC and fire protection systems to function properly, including a sophisticated air filtration system that has not been used before on such a large scale. 

Providing for these risks and uncertainties in the schedule could add another 

60 to 90 days to the completion date, on top of the additional time needed to 
101 

perform activities that were not included in the schedule or whose durations 

were overly optimistic. 

—Over the last 2 months, AOC’s construction management contractor has identified 8 critical activity paths that will extend the base project’s completion date 

beyond September 15, 2006, if lost time cannot be recovered or further delays 

cannot be prevented. These 8 activity paths are in addition to 3 that were previously identified by AOC’s construction management contractor. In addition, 

the amount of time that has to be recovered to meet the September 15 target 

has increased significantly. The activity paths include work on the utility tunnel 

and testing and balancing the HVAC system; procuring and installing the control wiring for the air handling units; testing the fire alarm system; millwork 

and casework in the orientation theaters and atrium; and stonework in the East 

Front, orientation theaters, and exhibit gallery. Having so many critical activity 

paths complicates project management and makes on-time completion more difficult. 

Possible Actions to Accelerate Work Raise Concerns 

AOC believes it can recover much of the lost time and mitigate remaining risks 

and uncertainties through such actions as using temporary equipment, adding workers, working longer hours, resequencing work, or performing some work after the 

CVC facility opens. AOC said that it is also developing a risk mitigation plan that 

should contain additional steps it can take to address the risks and uncertainties 

facing the project. Various AOC actions could expedite the project and save costs, 

but they could also have less positive effects. For example, accelerating work on the 

utility tunnel could save costs by preventing or reducing delays in several other important activities whose progress depends on the tunnel’s completion. Conversely, 

using temporary equipment or adding workers to overcome delays could increase the 

project’s costs if the government is responsible for the delays. Furthermore, (1) actions to accelerate the project may not save time; (2) the time savings may be offset 

by other problems; or (3) working additional hours, days, or shifts may adversely 

affect the quality of the work or worker safety. In our opinion, decisions to accelerate work must be carefully made, and if the work is accelerated, it must be tightly 

managed. 

Possible proposals from contractors to accelerate the project by changing the scope 

of work or its quality could compromise the CVC facility’s life safety system, the effective functioning of the facility’s HVAC system, the functionality of the facility to 

meet its intended purposes, or the life-cycle costs of materials. In August, project 

personnel raised such possibilities as lessening the rigor of systems’ planned testing, 

opening the facility before all planned testing is done, or opening the facility before 

completing all the work identified by Capitol Preservation Commission representatives as having to be completed for the facility to open. While such measures could 

save time, we believe that the risks associated with these types of actions need to 

be carefully considered before adoption and that management controls need to be 

in place to preclude or minimize any adverse consequences of such actions, if taken. 

Project’s Schedule Presents Other Management Concerns 

AOC’s schedule presents other management issues, including some that we have 

discussed in earlier testimonies. 

—AOC tied the date for opening the CVC facility to the public to September 15, 

2006, the date in the sequence 2 contract for completing the base project’s construction. Joining these two milestones does not allow any time for addressing 

unexpected problems in completing the construction work or in preparing for operations. AOC has since proposed opening the facility to the public on December 

15, 2006, but the schedule does not yet reflect this proposed revision. Specifically, on September 6, 2005, AOC told Capitol Preservation Commission representatives that it was still expecting the CVC base project to be substantially 

completed by September 15, 2006, but it proposed to postpone the facility’s 

opening for 3 months to provide time to finish testing CVC systems, complete 

punch-list work, and prepare for operating the facility. In our view, allowing 

some time to address unexpected problems is prudent. 

—AOC’s and its contractors’ reassessment of activity durations in the August 

schedule may not be sufficiently rigorous to identify all those that are unrealistic. In reassessing the project’s schedule, the construction management contractor found some durations to be reasonable that we considered likely to be 

too optimistic. Recently, AOC’s sequence 2 and construction management contractors reported that, according to their reassessment, the durations for interior stonework were reasonable. We previously found that these durations were 
102 

6See, for example, GAO–05–714T. 

optimistic, and CVC project staff we interviewed in August likewise believed 

they were unrealistic. 

—We have previously expressed concerns about a lack of sufficient or timely analysis and documentation of delays and their causes and determination of responsibility for the delays, and we recommended that AOC perform these functions 

more rigorously. We have not reassessed this area recently. However, given the 

project’s uncertain schedule, we believe that timely and rigorous analysis and 

documentation of delays and their causes and determination of responsibility for 

them are critical. We plan to reexamine this area again in the next few weeks. 

—The uncertainty associated with the project’s construction schedule increases 

the importance of having a summary schedule that integrates the completion 

of construction with preparations for opening the facility to the public, as the 

Subcommittee has requested and we have recommended.6 Without such a 

schedule, it is difficult to determine whether all necessary activities have been 

identified and linked to provide for a smooth opening or whether CVC operations staff will be hired at an appropriate time. In early September, AOC gave 

a draft operations schedule to its construction management contractor to integrate into the construction schedule. 

—As we noted in our July 14 testimony, AOC could incur additional costs for temporary work if it opens the CVC facility to the public before the construction 

of the House and Senate expansion spaces is substantially complete. As of last 

week, AOC’s contractors were still evaluating the construction schedule for the 

expansion spaces, and it was not clear what needs AOC would have for temporary work. The schedule, which we received in early September, shows December 2006 as the date for completing the construction of the expansion 

spaces. We have not yet assessed the likelihood of the contractor’s meeting this 

date. 

—Finally, we are concerned about the capacity of the Capitol Power Plant (CPP) 

to provide adequately for cooling, dehumidifying, and heating the CVC facility 

during construction and when it opens to the public. Delays in completing CPP’s 

ongoing West Refrigeration Plant Expansion Project, the removal from service 

of two chillers because of refrigerant gas leaks, fire damage to a steam boiler, 

management issues, and the absence of a CPP director could potentially affect 

CPP’s ability to provide sufficient chilled water and steam for the CVC facility 

and other congressional buildings. These issues are discussed in greater detail 

in appendix III. 

Actions Are Needed and Being Taken to Move the Project Forward and Address Concerns 

Since the Subcommittee’s July 14 CVC hearing, we have discussed a number of 

actions with AOC officials that we believe are necessary to address problems with 

the project’s schedule and our concerns. AOC generally agreed with our suggestions, 

and a discussion of them and AOC’s responses follows. 

—By October 31, 2005, work with all relevant stakeholders to reassess the entire 

project’s construction schedule, including the schedule for the House and Senate 

expansion spaces, to ensure that all key activities are included, their durations 

are realistic, their sequence and interrelationships are appropriate, and sufficient resources are shown to accomplish the work as scheduled. Specific activities that should be reassessed include testing, balancing, and commissioning the 

HVAC and filtration systems; testing the fire protection system; constructing 

the utility tunnel; installing the East Front mechanical (HVAC) system; installing interior stonework and completing finishing work (especially plaster work); 

fabricating and delivering interior bronze doors; and fitting out the gift shops. 

AOC agreed and has already asked its construction management and sequence 

2 contractors to reassess the August schedule. AOC has also asked the sequence 

2 contractor to show how it will recover time lost through delays. 

—Carefully consider the costs, benefits, and risks associated with proposals to 

change the project’s scope, modify the quality of materials, or accelerate work, 

and ensure that appropriate management controls are in place to prevent or 

minimize any adverse effects of such actions. AOC agreed. It noted that the sequence 2 contractor had already begun to work additional hours to recover lost 

time on the utility tunnel. AOC also noted that its construction management 

contractor has an inspection process in place to identify problems with quality 

and has recently enhanced its efforts to oversee worker safety. 

—Propose a CVC opening date to Congress that allows a reasonable amount of 

time between the completion of the base project’s construction and the CVC fa-
103 

7Public Law 108–447, enacted in December 2004, provided that up to $10.6 million could be 

so transferred upon the approval of the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations for 

the use of the CVC project. In June 2005, AOC received approval to use about $2.8 million of 

this $10.6 million, leaving a balance of about $7.8 million that can be used in the future. 

cility’s opening to address any likely problems that are not provided for in the 

construction schedule. The December 15, 2006, opening date that AOC proposed 

earlier this month would provide about 90 days between these milestones if 

AOC meets its September 15, 2006, target for substantial completion. However, 

we continue to believe that AOC will have difficulty meeting the September 15 

target, and although the 90-day period is a significant step in the right direction, an even longer period is likely to be needed. 

—Give priority attention to effectively implementing our previous recommendations that AOC (1) analyze and document delays and the reasons and responsibility for them on an ongoing basis and analyze the impact of scope changes 

and delays on the project’s schedule at least monthly and (2) advise Congress 

of any additional costs it expects to incur to accelerate work or perform temporary work to advance the CVC facility’s opening so Congress can weigh the 

advantages and disadvantages of such actions. AOC agreed. 

Project Costs and Funding Provided as of September 2005 

AOC is still updating its estimate of the cost to complete the CVC project, including the base project and the House and Senate expansion spaces. As a result, we 

have not yet had an opportunity to comprehensively update our November 2004 estimate that the project’s estimated cost at completion will likely be between $515.3 

million without provision for risks and uncertainties and $559 million with provision for risks and uncertainties. Since November 2004, we have added about $10.3 

million to our $515.3 million estimate to account for additional CVC design and construction work. (App. IV provides information on the project’s cost estimates since 

the original 1999 estimate.) However, our current $525.6 million estimate does not 

include costs that AOC may incur for delays beyond those delay costs included in 

our November 2004 estimate. Estimating the government’s costs for delays that occurred after November 2004 is difficult because it is unclear who ultimately will 

bear responsibility for various delays. Furthermore, AOC’s new estimates may cause 

us to make further revisions to our cost estimates. 

To date, about $528 million has been provided for CVC construction. (See app. V.) 

This amount does not include about $7.8 million that was made available for either 

CVC construction or operations.7 In late August, we and AOC found that duplicate 

funding had been provided for certain CVC construction work. Specifically, about 

$800,000 was provided in two separate funding sources for the same work. The 

House and Senate Committees on Appropriations were notified of this situation and 

AOC’s plan to address it. The funding that has been provided and that is potentially 

available for CVC construction covers the current estimated cost of the facility at 

completion and provides some funds for risks and uncertainties. However, if AOC 

encounters significant additional costs for delays or other changes, more funding 

may be needed. 

Because of the potential for coordination problems with a project as large and 

complex as CVC, we had recommended in July that AOC promptly designate responsibility for integrating the planning and budgeting for CVC construction and 

operations. In late August, AOC designated a CVC staff member to oversee both 

CVC construction and operations funding. AOC had also arranged for its operations 

planning consultant to develop an operations preparation schedule and for its CVC 

project executive and CVC construction management contractor to prepare an integrated construction and operations schedule. AOC has received a draft operations 

schedule and has given it to its construction management contractor to integrate 

into the construction schedule. Pending the hiring of an executive director for CVC, 

which AOC would like to occur by the end of January 2006, the Architect of the 

Capitol said he expects his Chief Administrative Officer, who is currently overseeing 

CVC operations planning, to work closely with the CVC project executive to integrate CVC construction and operations preparations. 

Work and costs could also be duplicated in areas where the responsibilities of 

AOC’s contractors overlap. For example, the contracts or planned modification for 

both AOC’s CVC construction design contractor and CVC operations contractor include work related to the gift shop’s design and wayfinding signage. We discussed 

the potential for duplication with AOC, and it agreed to work with its operations 

planning contractor to clarify the contractor’s scope of work, eliminate any duplication, and adjust the operations contract’s funding accordingly. 
104 

8We did not include the schedule for work on the House and Senate expansion spaces in our 

assessment because the schedule was not completed in time for analysis before the Subcommittee’s September hearing. 9 AOC’s sequence 2 contractor was unable to integrate the detailed schedule for the expansion 

spaces into the overall project schedule because of a number of problems, but plans to do so 

in the September schedule. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes our statement. We would be pleased to answer any 

questions that you or Members of the Subcommittee may have. 

APPENDIX I.—RISK ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY

With the assistance of a contractor, Hulett & Associates, we assessed the risks 

associated with the Architect of the Capitol’s (AOC) July 2005 schedule for the Capitol Visitor Center (CVC) project and used the results of our assessment to estimate 

a time frame for completing the base CVC project with and without identified risks 

and uncertainties.8 In August 2005, we and the contractor interviewed project managers and team members from AOC and its major CVC contractors, a representative 

from the Army Corps of Engineers, and AOC’s Chief Fire Marshal to determine the 

risks they saw in completing the remaining work and the time they considered necessary to finish the CVC project and open it to the public. Using the project’s July 

2005 summary schedule (the most recent schedule available when we did our work), 

we asked the team members to estimate how many workdays would be needed to 

complete the remaining work. More specifically, for each summary-level activity that 

the members had a role or expertise in, we asked them to develop three estimates 

of the activity’s duration—the least, most likely, and longest time needed to complete the activity. We planned to estimate the base project’s most likely completion 

date without factoring in risks and uncertainties using the most likely activity durations estimated by the team members. In addition, using these three-point estimates 

and a simulation analysis to calculate different combinations of the team’s estimates 

that factored in identified risks and uncertainties, we planned to estimate completion dates for the base project at various confidence levels. 

In August 2005, AOC’s construction management and sequence 2 contractors were 

updating the July project schedule to integrate the construction schedule for the 

House and Senate expansion spaces, reflect recent progress and problems, and incorporate the results to date of their reassessment of the time needed for testing, 

balancing, and commissioning the heating, ventilation and air-conditioning, (HVAC) 

system and for fire alarm testing.9 This reassessment was being done partly to implement a recommendation we had made to AOC after assessing the project’s schedule in early 2004 and finding that the scheduled durations for these and other activities were optimistic. AOC’s construction management and sequence 2 contractors 

found that key detailed activities associated with the HVAC system had not been 

included in the schedule and that the durations for a number of activities were not 

realistic. Taking all of these factors into account, AOC’s contractors revised the 

project’s schedule in August. AOC believes that the revised schedule, which shows 

the base project’s completion date slipping by several months, allows too much time 

for the identified problems. As a result of this problem and others we brought to 

AOC’s attention, AOC has asked its contractors to reassess the schedule. AOC’s construction management contractor believes that such a reassessment could take up 

to 2 months. In our opinion, there are too many uncertainties associated with the 

base project’s schedule to develop reliable estimates of specific completion dates, 

with or without provisions for risks and uncertainties. 

APPENDIX II.—CAPITOL VISITOR CENTER CRITICAL CONSTRUCTION MILESTONES, JULY-SEPTEMBER 

2005 

Activity Location Scheduled 

completion 

Actual completion 

Wall Stone Area 8 Layout ................................................................... Great Hall ..................... 6/20/05 7/25/05 

Wall Stone Area 9 Layout ................................................................... Great Hall ..................... 6/24/05 7/28/05 

Wall Stone Area 3 1 ............................................................................. Great Hall ..................... 7/06/05 7/22/05 

Wall Stone Area 2 1 ............................................................................. Great Hall ..................... 7/06/05 7/25/05 

Drill/Set Soldier Piles Sta. 0:00–1:00 ................................................. Utility Tunnel ................ 6/08/05 ....................

Wall Stone Area 9 Pedestals .............................................................. Great Hall ..................... 7/05/05 ....................

Wall Stone Area 1 ............................................................................... Cong. Auditorium ......... 8/08/05 ....................

Wall Stone Area 2 ............................................................................... Cong. Auditorium ......... 8/22/05 ....................

Bridge Over First Street ...................................................................... Utility Tunnel ................ 8/02/05 8/12/05 

Wall Stone Area 3 ............................................................................... Cong. Auditorium ......... 9/06/05 ....................
105 

10The Capitol Power Plant is no longer used to generate electric power, but it does generate 

steam and chilled water to serve the heating and cooling needs of the U.S. Capitol and 23 surrounding facilities. These facilities include about 16 million square feet. 

APPENDIX II.—CAPITOL VISITOR CENTER CRITICAL CONSTRUCTION MILESTONES, JULY-SEPTEMBER 

2005—Continued 

Activity Location Scheduled 

completion 

Actual completion 

Excavate and Lag Stations 1:00–2:00 ............................................... Utility Tunnel ................ 8/02/05 8/24/05

Wall Stone Area 4 1 ............................................................................. Great Hall ..................... 7/15/05 8/30/05 

Excavate and Shore Sta. 0:00–1:00 ................................................... Utility Tunnel ................ 7/21/05 ....................

Concrete Working Slab First Street ..................................................... Utility Tunnel ................ 7/26/05 ....................

Waterproof Working Slab Sta. 0:00–1:00 ........................................... Utility Tunnel ................ 7/29/05 ....................

Wall Stone Area 9 Base ...................................................................... Great Hall ..................... 7/15/05 ....................

1 These activities are not critical. All other activities were critical in the April schedule or became critical in subsequent schedules. 

Source: AOC’s April 2005 CVC sequence 2 construction schedule for the scheduled completion dates and AOC and its construction manage- ment contractor for the actual completion dates. 

Note: Actual completion information was obtained on September 8, 2005. 

APPENDIX III.—ISSUES AFFECTING THE CAPACITY OF THE CAPITOL POWER PLANT TO

PROVIDE FOR COOLING AND HEATING THE CAPITOL VISITOR CENTER

Several issues could affect the capacity of the Capitol Power Plant (CPP) to provide sufficient chilled water and steam for the CVC facility and other congressional 

buildings. CPP produces chilled water for cooling and dehumidification and steam 

for heating Capitol Hill buildings.10 To accommodate the CVC facility and meet 

other needs, CPP has been increasing its production capacity through the West Refrigeration Plant Expansion Project. This project, which was scheduled for completion in time to provide chilled water for the CVC facility during construction and 

when it opened, has been delayed. In addition, problems with aging equipment, fire 

damage, management weaknesses, and a leadership vacancy could affect CPP’s ability to provide chilled water and steam. More specifically: 

—In July, two chillers in CPP’s East Refrigeration Plant were taken out of service 

because of a significant refrigerant gas leak. The refrigerant, whose use is being 

phased out nationally, escaped into the surrounding environment. Because of 

the chillers’ age and use of an outdated refrigerant, AOC has determined that 

it would not be cost-effective to repair the chillers. CPP’s chilled water production capacity will be further reduced between December 1, 2005, and March 15, 

2006, when the West Refrigeration Plant is to be shut down to enable newly 

installed equipment to be connected to the existing chilled water system. However, the remainder of CPP’s East Refrigeration Plant is to remain operational 

during this time, and AOC expects that the East Refrigeration Plant will have 

sufficient capacity to meet the lower wintertime cooling demands. Additionally, 

CPP representatives indicated that they could bring the West Refrigeration 

Plant back online to provide additional cooling capacity in an emergency. CPP 

is developing a cost estimate for this option. 

—In June, one of two CPP boilers that burn coal to generate steam was damaged 

by fire. According to a CPP incident report, CPP operator errors contributed to 

the incident and subsequent damage. Both boilers were taken off-line for scheduled maintenance between July 1 and September 15, and CPP expects both boilers to be back online by September 30, thereby enabling CPP to provide steam 

to CVC when it is needed. 

—Several management issues at CPP could further affect the expansion plant’s 

and CPP’s operational readiness: 

—CPP has not yet developed a plan for staffing and operating the entire plant 

after the West Refrigeration Plant becomes operational or contracted for its 

current staff to receive adequate training to operate the West Refrigeration 

Plant’s new, much more modern equipment. 

—CPP has not yet received a comprehensive commissioning plan from its contractor. 

—A number of procurement issues associated with the plant expansion project 

have arisen. We are reviewing these issues. 

—CPP has been without a director since May 2005, when the former director resigned. CPP is important to the functioning of Congress, and strong leadership 

is needed to oversee the completion of the expansion project and the integration, 

commissioning, and operation of the new equipment, as well as address the 
106 

operational and management problems at the plant. Filling the director position 

with an experienced manager who is also an expert in the production of steam 

and chilled water is essential. AOC recently initiated the recruitment process. 

APPENDIX IV.—COST GROWTH FOR THE CVC PROJECT 

[In millions of dollars] 

Factors Cost increase Subtotal Total 

Project budget, original (1999) ........................................................................... 265.0 

Factors beyond or largely beyond AOC’s control: 

5 additional scope items 1 ................................................................ 29.7 

House and Senate expansion spaces ................................................ 70.0 

Air filtration system funded by Dep’t. of Defense (DOD) ................. 33.3 

Enhanced fire safety and security .................................................... 13.7 

146.7 

Bid prices exceeding estimates, preconstruction costs exceeding 

budgeted costs, unforeseen field conditions, and design 

changes ......................................................................................... 46.0 

46.0 

Other factors (costs associated with delays and design-to-budget overruns) ....................................................................................................... 57.6 250.3 

Project budget after increases (as of November 2004) ................... 515.3 

GAO-projected costs to complete after proposed scope changes (as of June 

2005, excluding risks and uncertainties) 2 ..................................................... 7.2 522.5 

Additional cost-to-complete items (as of August 2005): 

Design of the Library of Congress tunnel (Funds from Capitol 

Preservation Fund) ........................................................................ 0.7 

Wayfinding fabrication and installation ............................................ 1.0 

Gift shop design ................................................................................ 0.1 

Gift shop construction and fit-out .................................................... 1.3 

GAO-projected costs to complete (as of August 2005, excluding risks 

and uncertainties) 3 ........................................................................... 3.1 525.6 

Potential additional costs associated with risks and uncertainties (as of 

November 2004) 4 ................................................................................... 43.5 

Less: Risks and uncertainties GAO believes the project faced in November 

2004 [Congressional seals, orientation film, and backpack storage space 

($4.2) ∂ US Capitol Police security monitoring ($3.0)] ............................... (7.2 ) 

Less: Additional cost-to-complete items (as of August 2005) ........................... (3.1 ) 

Potential remaining costs related to risks and uncertainties ................... 33.2 

GAO estimate of total cost to complete .............................................................. 558.8 

1 The five additional scope items are the House connector tunnel, the East Front elevator extension, the Library of Congress tunnel, temporary operations, and enhanced perimeter security. 2 The proposed scope changes totaling $7.2 million include $4.2 million for congressional seals, an orientation film, and backpack storage 

space and $3 million for U.S. Capitol Police security monitoring. 3 Because of rounding dollars in tenths of millions, this estimate excludes $2,892.00 for CVC ceremonial groundbreaking activities. 4 Risks and uncertainties can include shortages in skilled stone masons and stone, security and life safety changes, unknown operator requirements, unforeseen conditions, and contractor coordination issues. 

Sources: AOC and its contractors. 

APPENDIX V.—CURRENT FUNDING PROVIDED TO THE CVC PROJECT 

[In millions of dollars] 

Project Funding Subtotal Total 

Funding as of June 2005: 

Base project (as of November 2004) ........................................................... 351.1 

Expansion spaces: 

House ................................................................................................... 35.0 
107 

APPENDIX V.—CURRENT FUNDING PROVIDED TO THE CVC PROJECT—Continued 

[In millions of dollars] 

Project Funding Subtotal Total 

Senate .................................................................................................. 35.0 

70.0 

Filtration system ........................................................................................... 33.3 

U.S. Capitol Police security monitoring ........................................................ 3.0 

36.3 

Transfer of emergency response funds ................................................................. 26.3 

Current funding provided (as of June 2005) 1 ...................................................... 483.7 

Funding provided for fiscal year 2006 2 3 ............................................................ 41.9 

Design of Library of Congress tunnel (funds from the Capitol Preservation Fund) 2 ............................................................................................... 0.7 

Construction-related funding provided in operations obligation plan: 

Gift shop 2 ............................................................................................ 0.7 

Wayfinding 2 3 ...................................................................................... 0.3 

Commissioning systems 2 3 ................................................................. 0.2 

Miscellaneous design and construction 2 3 ......................................... 0.4 

Construction-related funding provided in operations .................................. 1.6 

Other funding provided .......................................................................................... 2.3 

Additional funding ................................................................................................. 44.2 

Current funding provided (as of August 2005) 4 .................................................. 527.9 

1 Because of rounding dollars in tenths of millions, the $483.7 million does not include $2,892 made available by the Capitol Preservation 

Commission from the Capitol Preservation Fund in October 2000 for the groundbreaking ceremony. 2 Fiscal year 2006 CVC construction funding does not include some construction-related items funded from other sources. Funds for these items include $700,000 for the Library of Congress tunnel provided by the Capitol Preservation Fund and $1.6 million provided in CVC’s June 2005 operations obligation plan. The $1.6 million is part of the $10.6 million made available in December 2004 by Public Law 108–447 for 

both CVC construction and operations. 3 Funds were provided for certain items that duplicated funding already provided in fiscal year 2006 CVC construction funding. The $41.9 

million represents fiscal year 2006 funding made available for CVC construction-related activity. Included in this $41.9 million fiscal year 

2006 funding are some construction-related items (i.e., $150,000 for wayfinding design, $232,000 for commissioning systems, and $423,000 

for miscellaneous design and construction) totaling $805,000 for which AOC received the duplicative funding. These items had also been included in the $2.8 million operations obligation plan approved in June 2005. AOC has stated that it will not use fiscal year 2006 funding for 

these items. Thus, $805,000 of the $41.9 million fiscal year 2006 funding will be available for other uses. 4 Two construction-related items have not yet been fully funded. These are the gift shop construction (approximately $771,000) and wayfinding fabrication and installation (approximately $800,000). 

Sources: Legislation, Conference Reports, and AOC. 

Senator ALLARD. Mr. Dorn. 

Mr. DORN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And before I get into more detailed observations about the CVC, 

I’d also like to join Bernie in pointing out that the work is continuing to move along. There are stonemasons onsite, electricians 

are installing conduit. And, because of Bob Hixon and 10 years of 

hard work from Alan Hantman, in the end we’re going to have a 

sausage that we can all be proud of. We’re going to be happy with 

this building when it’s done. 

The big question today, though, is: When will the construction be 

complete and ready to open to the public? 

I was in a meeting recently and heard a contractor very succinctly describe GAO as just an observer whose job was to be somewhat pessimistic while his company was the doers, and their job 

was to get the project finished, and that’s what they were going to 

do by September 15. 

Well, part of GAO’s role certainly is to be an observer, but what 

we also do is analyze those observations, based on our experience, 

and apply foresight to the situation so that the doers can make 

needed adjustments. 
108 

So, as predicted by the contractor, here are some somewhat pessimistic observations on whether or not they’re getting it done. 

To bring us up to date from the last hearing, in June the contractor’s schedule said they’d finish on October 15, but AOC was confident that they would—could make up that month and the project 

would finish on September 15. In July, the contractor’s schedule 

said they’d finish on November 17, but the AOC was still confident 

that they could make up 2 months and the project would finish on 

time, September 15. Now, on September 15, 2005, 1 year before the 

scheduled opening, the contractor’s schedule says that they won’t 

finish the CVC until February 26, 2007. And, still, the contractor 

and AOC say that the project will be substantially complete by 

September 15, 2006. 

My observations on those facts follow, but first I’d like to point 

out that, while, for various reasons, there have been some delays 

to the actual work, the vast majority of the apparent schedule slippage, like Bernie said, this summer, has been due to work that’s 

always been in the construction contractor’s contract; he just didn’t 

reflect it in the schedule. This omitted work includes items such as 

stone installation, fire-alarm testing, and commissioning—that 

GAO observed and pointed out to the CVC team in early 2004. 

At the subcommittee’s request, AOC and GAO agreed on a number of critical milestones to be observed in helping to keep the CVC 

project on schedule. Mr. Chairman, as you pointed out, out of 16 

milestones reached to date, only 7 have been completed, and none 

of those were completed on time. 

Back in July, when the contractor was only 60 days behind 

schedule, he also had only 480 days to finish. That meant that for 

every 8 days he worked, he’d have to make up another day. Put 

another way, even working 8 days a week, those herculean efforts 

would not be enough, because it doesn’t allow time for weekends, 

holidays, risk and uncertainties or anything else that may come up. 

Since then, the schedule reflects an additional 3 months of work to 

get done in that same time period. 

Again back in July the contractor had worked on the CVC for 

about 250 days, but his schedule was already reflecting that same 

60-day delay. Or, put another way, 75 percent efficiency up to date. 

If you extrapolated forward 2 months to where we are today, the 

same efficiency would forecast that the contract would be 75 days 

late at this point, while the contractor’s schedule says they’re over 

150 days late. But, ignoring that, extrapolating the same 75 percent over the remaining contract duration would say that they’re 

not going to finish until May 2007. 

As part of our schedule risk assessment since the last hearing, 

we conducted a number of interviews of individual members of the 

CVC project team representing the contractors, construction-management firm, and AOC employees. In those interviews, we heard 

a number of the schedule durations are still considered by the CVC 

team members themselves to be optimistic, something we have 

been cautioning about for a number of months. Replacing the optimistic durations in the schedule with most-likely durations, as reported, again, by the CVC team members, would extend the completion date by 14 weeks, which, again, gets you to May 2007. 
109 

Unfortunately, because of all the turmoil in the contractor schedule to date, which, on a positive note, is due to the concerted efforts 

of AOC and Gilbane and Manhattan to resequence activities and 

rein in the completion date, we can’t accurately forecast a completion date as accurately as we would like to do. But, as Bernie has 

pointed out, all the data points to a completion date in the spring/ 

summer of 2007, unless AOC is able to meet their goal of resequencing and consolidating activities. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator ALLARD. Thank you for your testimony. 

In June, the Architect of the Capitol committed to completing a 

risk-mitigation plan by this hearing. This is needed to ensure plans 

are in place to make up for the lost time, in the event certain risks 

become realities. As you’ve experienced with the utility tunnel, for 

example, Mr. Hantman why is the plan not complete? 

Mr. HIXON. Well, Mr. Chairman, I can answer that question. 

I do have the plan. We have the draft here. A copy of that plan 

was forwarded to the Government Accountability Office last week. 

We have identified the risk, the project team has, over a number 

of sessions. We used the head of Project Management Institute’s 

SIG for risk assessment, working with McDonough Bolyard Peck. 

So, the items have been identified. We’ll be working on developing 

handling plans on September 20. We have a meeting set up for 

that right now. And then we’ll begin, in October, evaluating those 

things on a weekly basis to make sure we’re staying current with 

them, identify any issues. As Mr. Hantman said, we would drop 

items as they are resolved, and add new items as they become apparent. So, we do have a plan in place. It’s—this is the draft plan, 

but it’s the beginning of this process. 

Senator ALLARD. Why was the contract not awarded until August 

11, when this issue’s been raised by GAO for some time? 

Mr. HIXON. It’s not my recollection that we waited until August 

11. We may have actually awarded it—I think we may have started 

the work then. The impression I have is that we awarded that 

work back in July. 

Senator ALLARD. In July? Okay. 

Mr. HIXON. I—you know, I could verify that. 

Senator ALLARD. Would you verify that—— 

Mr. HIXON. Sure. 

Senator ALLARD [continuing]. For the subcommittee? Appreciate 

that. And then, if you would get something after the hearing to us, 

within a week’s time, we would appreciate that. Make sure we 

have that straight on the record. 

[The information follows:] 

VERIFICATION OF CVC RISK ASSESSMENT AWARD DATE

The contract modification for the CVC risk assessment was awarded on July 11, 

2005. 

Senator ALLARD. We heard from GAO in 2004 about areas of potential risk, and Mr. Dorn testified somebody had said, ‘‘Well, our 

job is constructing and building, yours is to be pessimistic.’’ And I 

do think that sometimes AOC’s attitude was that GAO was just a 

minor irritant out there, and you have to deal with them. But the 

significant thing is that we’ve got a number of concerns that they 
110 

raised at that particular time that are happening today. And my 

question is: Why weren’t those treated more seriously by the contractor? And why wasn’t something being done to treat the GAO 

recommendations more seriously? Because time and time again 

GAO has been showing up before our subcommittee making these 

assessments, indicating there’s potentially problems. Everybody 

tends to ignore it. And then we get around to that time, sure 

enough, we’ve got a problem in front of us of dealing with those. 

And I’ve got some 13 examples here before me. 

And, Mr. Hantman, while you continue to believe the September 

2006 construction deadline can be met, you have moved the opening to December 2006 to allow for commissioning of systems and 

other requirements to have completed. And aren’t the reasons your 

schedule slipped the same ones identified by GAO in 2004? 

Mr. HANTMAN. Mr. Chairman, in my opening statement I certainly addressed the fact that there are several key areas which 

have been plaguing us from the beginning of the project, pretty 

much—the stone issue, as we came about with the East Capitol 

Street issue—and the idea of getting enough detailed information 

together so that the commissioning plan could be fully integrated 

into the schedule. In fact, there was a meeting, just earlier this 

week, with our contractors and their subcontractors, with Gilbane 

sitting in on it, taking a look at one of those key issues: commissioning, also East Capitol Street. And while GAO rightly says that 

the current schedule we have out there has added additional time 

to it, that’s basically because the commissioning schedule didn’t 

have an opportunity to be integrated. It was not at the level of detail that it is right now. Everybody I’ve talked to who basically 

worked through that meeting, an—almost an all-day session, said 

that our next schedule should reflect a couple of months coming off 

because of the way that things could be worked out. 

CAPITOL VISITOR CENTER OPENING SCHEDULE

Now, Mr. Ungar clearly indicated that he recognizes that some 

things can be done in parallel and that, in fact, we are working to 

do that and make sure that we integrate them clearly with the fire 

marshal and anticipate them in advance of things happening. 

We’ve had an evolution, Mr. Chairman, in terms of our staff, 

both on the Gilbane side, as well as our construction management 

side. Because of some of the turmoil on the staff, we haven’t had 

the strength up there to be able to address some of the issues that 

we’ve all been aware of, going back. We have that staff in place 

now, and we feel very secure about the schedule, the level of detail 

we’re looking at, on the schedule. And, hopefully, that will be a tool 

for us to continue addressing those issues while still maintaining 

the quality and the progress and the life-safety issues on the 

project, going forward. 

Senator ALLARD. And why did it take Gilbane and yourself so 

long to reevaluate these issues? 

Mr. HIXON. I’m not sure I understand what you’re—— 

Senator ALLARD. Well, it seems—— 

Mr. HIXON [continuing]. Referring to. 

Senator ALLARD [continuing]. Like these issues have been—they 

were mentioned in 2004, and now we’re back dealing with these 
111 

issues now, even though they were brought to our attention way 

back in 2004. Why is it that we’re just addressing them now? 

Mr. HIXON. Well, first let me say that we’re working very closely 

with GAO. They have made recommendations, they have made a 

lot of very good recommendations that we have moved out on. We 

have had schedule evaluation issues in the past. When we brought 

in a new scheduler, Mr. Dooley, from Gilbane, we’ve had a dramatic increase in the quality of the schedule management being 

done by Gilbane. It’s being done in an excellent manner right now. 

And, frankly, that’s the reason a lot of these issues have come to 

bear. They are now readily apparent, when, before, they were buried within the schedule. So, I don’t believe that we’ve over-ignored 

them, but I think a lot of issues that have come—that we’re dealing 

with, particularly the commissioning activities—so many of those 

activities were a year out from the project. This is the point in time 

when you would be identifying all those items to make sure you’ve 

got it well planned. The activities, when they were added to the 

schedule in this last month, added 11 weeks to the schedule. We 

knew that was an unreasonable amount of time, but it also had a 

great deal of detail, in coordination with the subcontractors, on how 

these activities need to be performed. So that, now, is being reevaluated to see what the real duration should be, when it should 

start, based on the completion of the air-handling units and the 

provision of chilled water and steam from the utility tunnel. 

So, I think it’s a very good process that’s underway to get us to 

a real date. 

Senator ALLARD. Seems to me that the later on you wait to address these issues, the less time you have for correction on the back 

end. And the sooner you can get to them, the more time you have 

to make those corrections. 

Mr. HIXON. That’s absolutely true, sir. 

Senator ALLARD. I’m perplexed and somewhat frustrated that we 

don’t deal with these earlier, because it would give us more flexibility, and I think it would lend more confidence to the subcommittee, and probably GAO, too, if we saw those happening a little bit earlier. Once they get pointed out, that something begins to 

happen with those issues that get brought up early that are potentially a problem. 

Mr. HIXON. That’s true. And the schedule activities, as of April, 

when we—we began with the new scheduling process in January. 

And between January and April of this year is when we really 

brought—got the quality of scheduling to a point where we were 

able to identify all these things. And we had real solid schedule activities to deal with. This process has evolved very well since then. 

But, I agree, it’s, ideally, something that would have happened 

much earlier. 

Senator ALLARD. GAO is projecting a completion date of as late 

as summer of 2007—about 6 to 9 months later than AOC’s projection. How do you account for that? 

Mr. HIXON. I believe that the schedule data that the GAO consultant was working off of added the 11 weeks to our data. And 

they’ve done it—they’ve done their analysis several other ways, and 

I—I’m not about to take the consultant on, and his capabilities. But 

when we look at the activities ourselves in the schedule, and what 
112 

the plan is, we—it doesn’t seem at all reasonable to project that 

things will go out until 2007, based on the amount of work we have 

available to complete construction. The concern we have, primarily, 

is the amount of time it’ll take in commissioning, especially the 

life-safety systems, to make sure those activities are all done. The 

base construction, itself, when you—while we’ve missed milestones, 

we have not missed them by that much. We’ve missed them by 

weeks and maybe 1 month or 11⁄2 months when you look through 

the whole schedule. That would not account for that kind of a deviation in the end date. 

So, we just disagree that it’s going to be as dire as GAO projects. 

We think that the scheduling activities—and the construction contractor certainly does—thinks that, at this point, we would be on 

or about September for the completion of the construction. 

Now, this is clearly a stretch goal. This is not something easy to 

achieve. I don’t think the original contract duration of 22 months 

was an easy duration. And, while everybody can commit, the real 

question is: How realistic are those opportunities to deliver on 

time? And that’s something we continue to refine. 

The contract completion date remains September 15, as of this 

date. We have not been asked by the contractor to provide a time 

extension, to date; so, contractually, they still have the obligation 

to deliver by September 15. There are some issues associated with 

the utility tunnel that have impacted them. They are looking to 

overcome that. They would have otherwise had a 16-week delay in 

the utility tunnel. We’ve got a 4-week delay right now in the utility 

tunnel. So, their activities, in order to try and resolve issues, have 

improved the utility tunnel completion by what it would have been 

otherwise. 

So, I think we will know—we will have a lot more information 

next month, because we will have digested a lot of this schedule 

activity. And—but, at this point, we’re still anticipating a fall completion of construction. 

Senator ALLARD. Okay, so the contractor hasn’t asked for an extension beyond September 15. And his contract says it will be completed by September 15 of next year, 1 year from now. If they don’t 

meet those contract requirements, then what happens? 

Mr. HIXON. If, in fact, they do not complete the construction by 

the completion date in their contract, they’re liable for liquidated 

damages. If, on the other hand, we have—they have differing site 

conditions, they’re entitled to a time extension. If there are concurrent delays, which means both of us are delaying, we have delays 

or the differing site conditions, which are excusable, and the contractor also has delays on his end, then the—on his side—then 

you’d have time, but not compensation. 

Senator ALLARD. Do you see any potential delays that would be 

attributed to those exceptions in the contract on completing that 

date? Do you understand what I’m saying? 

Mr. HIXON. Yes. I—the opportunity exists, with the delays that 

have occurred in the utility tunnel for differing site conditions, that 

the contractor has entitlement on those issues. If—but the evaluation of that is, you can also—shall I wait? The issue is that once 

you get into that evaluation, we will be looking at anything that 

occurred contractually that we had an obligation on, versus any-
113 

thing that they had an obligation on. And that will be sorted out 

in time. But, at this point, we’re working very collaboratively together, and the focus is not on trying to sort out contractually who 

gets to do what to whom, but, rather, to see if we can’t successfully 

deliver the project on time. But I’m—— 

Senator ALLARD. I guess the key point to this is that Manhattan 

feels they can get things done by September 15, and they don’t see 

any reason, at this point in time—at least they haven’t approached 

us for any reason—— 

Mr. HIXON. That’s correct. 

Senator ALLARD [continuing]. Why that date wouldn’t be met. 

Mr. HIXON. And they reiterated that as recently as 1 week ago. 

Now, that doesn’t mean that there aren’t a lot of challenges for us 

to face between now and then, but, at this point in time, it does 

not seem impossible to achieve, and it’s certainly the commitment 

of the team to try and meet that date. The team will be meeting 

in a partnering session tomorrow—this is with all our subcontractors—to make sure we’ve got everybody in line, focused on this 

goal. If there is something that comes up that renders this an impossible date, then we will want to include that. And that’s part 

of our scheduling effort, to try and be realistic on what we’re going 

to deliver. 

Senator ALLARD. GAO is testifying that the contractor would 

have to come up with 1 recovery day for every 8 remaining days 

between July 2005 and September 2006. And that’s assuming 

there’s no further delays. It’s hard to imagine that that would happen. And that’s to complete the project by 2006. Is that completion 

date really realistic? 

Mr. HIXON. Well, I believe that’s the reason we have changed our 

target for doing a public opening. We have looked at what’s going 

on, the risks that have been presented to us, the impacts that we 

have incurred, and we said it would be imprudent to expect that 

all of these things have not had some impact on the process that 

would preclude us being able to have the grand opening in September. So, you know, the date of the grand opening will be whenever it is, whenever it’s selected. But there are activities that have 

been taking place that could impact our ability to deliver the completed facility on September 15. 

FIRE SYSTEMS COMMISSIONING

Senator ALLARD. Okay. I’d like to move on to the commissioning 

of our fire-safety systems. In our June hearing, Mr. Ungar voiced 

concern that the time allotted for commissioning of the fire alarm 

and smoke evacuation systems was optimistic and should be reassessed. 

And, Mr. Ungar, has this reassessment been completed? And are 

you now satisfied that the time required for commissioning of these 

systems is appropriately reflected in the schedule? 

Mr. UNGAR. Mr. Chairman, first, the assessment has been taking 

place. That’s one of the reasons why so much time has been added 

to the schedule. We and AOC, concurrently, found since your last 

hearing, that the time for the fire protection system work was understated in the schedule. Now the question is: Exactly how much 

will be required? I don’t think we’ll know that until AOC finishes 
114 

this current evaluation, because that’s one of the items that’s included in its study—— 

Senator ALLARD. Yes. 

Mr. UNGAR. So, exactly how much time will eventually be required, we don’t know. We feel very strongly it’s going to be very 

likely to be more than the July schedule shows. Now, exactly how 

much more remains to be seen, but at least 3 to 4 weeks, probably 

more, depending on what they can do sequentially versus concurrently. 

Senator ALLARD. So, we do not have a clear understanding of the 

fire- and life-safety requirements, basically because there is some 

disagreement between you and the Architect of the Capitol about 

what can be done sequentially and what can be done concurrently. 

Is that correct? 

Mr. UNGAR. Right, sir. There are two different issues. 

One is: What are the requirements for the system—what components, what elements, what characteristics, what’s the design of 

the system? That issue, we understand. The team has come up 

with a design that they believe is acceptable. I don’t believe the fire 

marshal has had an opportunity yet, though, to thoroughly review 

that. So, that’s a bit of a question. But I think, at least now that 

a team is together—whereas, last time we met, the team was disagreeing among itself—so, that’s an accomplishment. How much 

time it will take for the system testing of the fire protection system 

and the inspection process is what’s up in the air right now. It definitely does seem like it’s going to take more time than is allowed 

in the current schedule. The question is: How much is it going to 

eventually take? And that, we need to resolve in the next 4 to 6 

weeks. 

Senator ALLARD. Mr. Hantman, what comments do you have 

about finalizing the fire- and life-safety requirements? 

Mr. HANTMAN. This goes, Mr. Chairman, to the comment I made 

earlier, when I mentioned, just on Tuesday, we had Manhattan 

meeting with their subcontractors, the electrical and the mechanical subcontractors. We also had Gilbane in that meeting, as well. 

Everybody I’ve talked to who attended that detailed meeting, basically for the day on Tuesday, indicated that the people who are actually going to be doing the work, the mechanical and electrical 

subcontractors, are feeling very positive about their schedules on 

this, that they can make it within the contract date. 

The issue is that Manhattan needs to put all of this information 

and the creative thinking—and, quite frankly, as GAO has indicated, there are many different ways to achieve an end product 

over here. They’re talking about, creatively, what can be done in 

parallel, as opposed to in sequence, which is what this latest schedule indicates, that 11 weeks added was purely sequential, without 

putting it all together. So, this major step of having the installers, 

the vendors who are basically contractually responsible for these 

systems, come up with their ideas of how they propose to install 

it, have Manhattan put that in a schedule and sit for significant 

work sessions with the fire marshal to see if the fire marshal has 

any problem with that; and when and if that inspection can be 

done in an orderly path. 
115 

The concept that we have, basically, is that you really have a 3- 

month inspection period for all of these life-safety systems. And the 

contractors surely want to do them in parallel. And the fire marshal has indicated that doing things in parallel also is something 

that they would be comfortable with. The question is what the contractors are now thinking of, in terms of normal practice, would be 

acceptable to the fire marshal. 

So, our first major step has been taken in bringing this to the 

point where we can sit down with the fire marshal and say, ‘‘This 

is what the vendors, the contractors, in fact, specifically intend to 

do. Let’s talk about your issues and see if we can resolve this way 

in advance of starting that activity next summer,’’ so that when we 

get to that point in time, everything’s smooth and nobody has surprises coming forward. 

Senator ALLARD. And when we are dealing with all this creative 

thinking that you mentioned, what is the price tag that’s coming 

along with that creative thinking? Do we have any idea what the 

total price tag associated with the new requirements might be? 

Mr. HANTMAN. I don’t know, Mr. Chairman, if I’d characterize 

them as new requirements. It’s a question of a different way of 

achieving the same end. 

Senator ALLARD. I see. 

Mr. HANTMAN. And the creativity that we’re looking for, in terms 

of our contractors, is—means and methods of getting the job done— 

is basically the responsibility of the individual contractors. They 

need to get from point A to point C. How they get there, basically, 

is their decision. We just have to make sure that the pathway is 

in sync with good practices and that our fire marshals agree with. 

And I’ve not heard anything, at this point, implying that there are 

any additional dollars involved in that. 

Senator ALLARD. I gather from your response that there really 

hasn’t been any discussion about cost at this particular point. 

Mr. Ungar. 

Mr. HANTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I would respond to the—— 

Mr. UNGAR. Mr. Chairman, I think there’s a separate issue on 

the cost question, and it has to do with what the current system 

would look like, versus what the fire protection system was when 

they originally awarded sequence 2. And there, there is a significant additional cost. Based on what we’ve seen right now, it looks 

like the additional cost for the fire protection system, because of 

changes that have been made over the last many months, is well 

over $3 million, at least the way we interpret the information. 

Senator ALLARD. Wow. 

Mr. UNGAR. Maybe Mr. Hixon would have a more elaborate discussion of that. 

Senator ALLARD. You wanted to respond to that, Mr. Hantman? 

Mr. HANTMAN. One of the issues we’re looking at over here—and 

I certainly don’t dispute, necessarily, what GAO is saying—but one 

of the issues that we are dealing with over here is taking a base 

building system, a series of systems, and trying to work them out 

with a very complex security system, something which is state of 

the art. We’re basically a beta test site for some of the things in 

security, for chem/bio concerns, that have never been done before. 

So, some of the changes that GAO is referring to is, basically, as 
116 

we evolve and that people understand what the requirements are, 

we’re trying to deal with those issues and make sure that we don’t 

compromise either of those, the security or the life-safety issues. 

Bob, did you have anything to add to that? 

Mr. HIXON. I believe the only thing we need to add is that the 

fire marshal is working very closely with us in coordinating all 

these activities. 

We have given them copies of the planned schedule, the original 

schedule before we started revising it. We’re seeking their input on 

the new schedule. So, there’s a—we’ve got the fire marshal much 

more involved with the team now than they were previously in 

order to ensure that we’ve got all their requirements accurately 

folded into the schedule activities that need to take place. 

We do have revisions to the control system for the building that 

also affects the fire-alarm system, and those are the numbers that 

Mr. Ungar is talking about. But we have that data. The contractor’s been authorized to proceed with it. So, it’s now a matter of 

just making sure we get the programming and the requirements 

for all of these very complicated systems that must interact together if there is an event that requires use of those systems. 

Senator ALLARD. And is that within the budget that we’ve originally laid out for it? 

Mr. HIXON. Certainly, I’ve already authorized the funding for 

these activities, or at least the part—the amounts that we think 

are reasonable. Yes, it’s within the budget. It does create added impact to the budget for us. 

Senator ALLARD. And you think it might be $3 million? Would 

you agree with what he’s suggesting? 

Mr. HIXON. It—there are a number of changes that have taken 

place, and—incorporating all of these things. If you look at the estimated prices, those numbers are in that vicinity. We are expecting—we still have to reconcile some issues with the control system. 

There’s a big swing difference between what the designer feels that 

the control system should cost and what the contractor tells him 

it costs. We’re trying to reconcile that and make sure we’re all talking the same thing. We’re—that we don’t have a scope difference 

of opinion. 

INTERIOR STONE CONSTRUCTION

Senator ALLARD. I’ll go to the stonemasons. I think we’ve recognized that, for some time, there might be a problem with an inadequate number of stonemasons. Then we had an inadequate supply 

of stone. Now we have the stone coming in, but we’re back to the 

shortage of stonemasons again. Currently, we have about 16 

stonemasons, while 24 are needed to keep pace. Would you agree 

with that? 

Mr. HIXON. No, Mr. Chairman, we’ve—currently are carrying 20 

stonemasons but not all of them are here every day, so we’ve been 

averaging about 18 actually present on the site. This is up from 

about eight in the first part of August, so we’ve had a dramatic improvement, thankfully. GAO did predict, last year, that we would 

have a stonemason problem. When we started the stone installation, we had a lot of masons, and we didn’t have enough stone. 

Now we’ve got a lot of stone delivered and we’re ramping up the 
117 

number of masons. They’re looking to get up to a number of approximately 28 teams. They are hiring them as they find them. 

And we are expecting the situation will improve as the weather 

gets cooler. 

Senator ALLARD. So, your view is that the contractor is doing everything they can to bring in the critical workers that we need. 

Mr. HIXON. They are pushing very hard to get more masons on. 

And the quantity of stone—we have no change in the quality, 

that’s—you know, we’re—that’s our first priority, is to make sure 

it’s done right—but the quantity of stone, with these additional 

teams, has improved dramatically in the last 21⁄2 weeks. And you 

can see that—the Orientation Theater work has actually all been 

done since the middle of August. 

Senator ALLARD. Mr. Hantman, you say in your testimony that 

the contractor is considering alternatives in stone fabrication and 

installation to further mitigate delays. What are those alternatives? And will they affect quality or the life-cycle cost? 

Mr. HANTMAN. Well, with the injunction still in place, perhaps 

it’s safer, Mr. Chairman, for the contractor to speak, himself, as to 

what he can actually say. So, if I could, Mr. John Barron, who is 

the president of the eastern region for Manhattan, can talk about 

what they are attempting to do on the stone. 

Senator ALLARD. Well, maybe what we can do is have a response 

to that question in the next month, when we get together, and let’s 

have that clearly laid out for us, if we can, in the next month. We’ll 

bring it back up. 

Mr. HANTMAN. We have been driving them, essentially, to finalize those additional preparations that they are considering right 

now. 

Senator ALLARD. Okay. And, again, the bottom part of that is 

your alternatives and then how they may affect quality or life-cycle 

costs. 

[The information follows:] 

During the September 15, 2005 hearing with the Legislative Subcommittee of the 

Senate Appropriations, Senator Allard requested a written statement regarding the 

effect of an injunction imposed upon Manhattan Construction Company (‘‘Manhattan’’), the contractor, relative to stone supply for the Capitol Visitor Center (CVC) 

project and actions being taken by Manhattan to ensure timely stone deliveries to 

the project in light of the injunction. 

This statement can only provide brief explanation and basic understanding of the 

injunction, the effects it is having on our subcontractor’s and our ability to perform 

and our actions to complete the construction as required by the project schedule. In 

order to understand, one must review the allegations (yet unproven) that gave rise 

to the injunction. 

The injunction has been imposed on Manhattan, and its subcontractor, Boatman 

& Magnani, Inc. by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, 

requiring that Quarra Stone Company be used as the fabricator to supply the sandstone to be used on the CVC Sequence 2 project. This injunction stems from a lawsuit by Quarra Stone Company against Annandale Sandstone Quarries, Boatman & 

Magnani, Inc. and Manhattan regarding an alleged breach of an alleged exclusivity 

agreement between Quarra Stone Company and Annandale Stone Quarries. We 

begin by looking at the responsibilities of the parties involved. 

Boatman & Magnani, Inc. (‘‘Boatman’’) is the interior stone installer with responsibility for ordering, engineering, receiving and installing the interior stonework for 

the project. It should be noted that sandstone is only one of the stone types to be 

installed by Boatman for the project but represents the primary stone material used 

on interior wall surfaces. To perform the installation of the stone, Boatman is required to provide the necessary manpower, in form of skilled stonemasons, to ensure 
118 

the stone is installed in accordance with the performance period allocated for 

stonework by the project schedule. They are a first tier subcontractor to Manhattan. 

Annandale Sandstone Quarries (‘‘Annandale’’) is the sandstone quarry with responsibility to provide sufficient raw material from the quarry, in the form of stone 

slabs to the fabricator, to allow for the timely fabrication and delivery of sandstone 

for the project. Annandale is a direct vendor to Boatman. It should be noted that 

normal industry practice is for the quarry to be a direct vendor to the fabricator, 

versus a vendor to the stone installer, to allow for effective control, by primacy of 

contract, of the fabricator over the quarry. This unusual contractual relationship 

stems from the central issue of the lawsuit and resultant injunction. 

The current levels of fabrication find us behind by nine truck loads of material 

and losing ground at the approximate rate of three quarters of a truck load a week. 

This analysis is based on Quarra’s court certified fabrication schedule commitments 

of three months ago. We have asked the vendors, through Boatman, that the time 

lost on deliveries be recovered. This urging has lead to a recent commitment from 

Quarra, details unknown, to provide an additional resource to assist them in fabrication. We are unable to determine if this action will satisfy Boatman’s needs for 

deliveries. We should see the results of this action in the coming weeks. We continue to understand the status of fabrication through daily communication with all 

parties involved with fabrication and continue to push the effort through our subcontractor. In addition, we have required Boatman to provide a plan to overcome 

the late deliveries with a shorter installation period. This program will have a cost 

impact but we expect it will overcome some of the impact of the late deliveries. 

At Manhattan’s request, Boatman has notified its vendors several times and the 

court at least twice of these problems. The Court does not appear to be convinced 

that the delay and the timing problems are significant. Despite Manhattan’s and 

AOC’s efforts, the Court seems convinced that the schedule for completion is illusory 

and insignificant, and more important is protecting Quarra’s alleged exclusivity 

agreement wherein Quarra alleges it is the only fabricator allowed to touch any Annandale stone. In each instance of discussion with the Court, we have been directed 

to resolve the issues among the parties. We continue to attempt to obtain the relief 

we need through the Court. 

Manhattan entered into this contract intent on providing the United States government and United States taxpayer with the best value, and an on time, on budget 

delivery. Manhattan’s record of work speaks for itself, as does the AOC’s track 

record on projects of this type. However, in none of those projects has the federal 

court system, on behalf of a third or fourth tier subcontractors, involved itself in the 

construction process. Presently, the hands of the people who could mitigate this 

delay with decisive action (action that is typical of any other construction project 

either public or private) are tied. 

Mr. HANTMAN. Well, certainly, in terms of quality, as Bob indicated, that nothing that we’re doing is decreasing quality on anything. We’re trying to make sure that, again, this is a building 

built for the ages and we’re doing it the right way, in terms of 

those costs, yes. 

CAPITOL POWER PLANT

Senator ALLARD. Let me go to the Capitol Power Plant. As mentioned in my opening testimony, we’ve become aware of problems 

at the Capitol Power Plant, where a major expansion project is underway. And I understand that the director of the plant resigned 

in April, yet no solicitation has gone out, as of last week, to hire 

a new director. I’m getting reports of problems at the power plant, 

as leading to some serious problems there. And it seems to me like 

nobody’s in charge. And I’m wondering why there hasn’t been a request to have somebody in charge there. 

Mr. HANTMAN. Mr. Chairman, we are actively soliciting now for 

a replacement for our director, who left. The issue of not having 

started earlier, perhaps that is my fault. The issue there was, I 

was looking at a project that was going well, that, in fact, was approaching completion fairly soon, and—did we need a person in 

that staff level for that point in time? I put in my Assistant Archi-
119 

tect to take a look at that, and now I have the head of our engineering department, Scott Birkhead, coming in. And until we can 

find that individual, a new person, for that position, we have Mr. 

Birkhead, who had responsibility for the plant before, working directly with the team that’s in place. 

So—and while there were several issues that have occurred, one 

of the reasons, in fact, for our building the power plant in the first 

place, or doing the expansion for the refrigeration, was because the 

equipment in the east plant was old. We had R–12 refrigerant, all 

of those issues. So, in past weeks, some of that refrigerant has 

leaked out, and the seals were no good, so those two units will not 

be put back into service. We do have two temporary units in place 

in the east refrigeration plant. I spoke, in fact, to Scott this morning, and we can give you a background, in terms of the capacity 

that we have in place currently, and what’s being put into place, 

and the timeframes, in terms of our expected load requirements as 

it impacts the CVC, and, in fact, the Hill, as a totality, and give 

you a sense of where we are on that. 

Senator ALLARD. So, when do you think the Capitol Visitor Center is going to need the steam and chilled water from the power 

plant? And when that comes online, are you confident that the 

power plant will be able to provide the needed heat or cooling at 

that particular point in time? 

Mr. HANTMAN. Our current schedule, Mr. Chairman, calls for 

March 2006 being the timeframe in which we would want to hook 

in the work that we’re doing in East Capitol Street to the chilled 

water piping. The steam is not an issue. We have that capacity, 

we’ve had that capacity for a long time. The issue was the adequacy of the chilled water, which is why we’re doing the refrigeration equipment now on East. That—the schedule on the power 

plant, right now, calls for those pieces of equipment to be ready to 

be manually operated, come December of this year, and that, by 

March, also of 2006, the control should be up and running, as well. 

So, if we needed to produce the kind of chilled water capacity that 

we need, even if we had a 75 degree day in January, we should be 

able to do that. And we can give you some backup information on 

that, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator ALLARD. So, you’re confident that we don’t have a problem there, where our requirements at the Capitol Visitor Center 

can’t be met because of problems at the power plant. 

Mr. HANTMAN. Everything I’ve heard to date, Mr. Chairman, indicates that we should be able to have that capacity available when 

it’s necessary. 

Senator ALLARD. Okay. Let me ask you this, Mr. Ungar. If another one of the 50-year-old chiller fails prior to completion of the 

expansion project, what are the implications of such a failure, and 

how likely is that to happen? 

Mr. UNGAR. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Dorn would like to answer that 

question. 

Senator ALLARD. Okay. Mr. Dorn. 

Mr. DORN. Our analysis out there at the Capitol Power Plant 

would show, at this point, that if something happened today, there 

would still be sufficient chilled water for the buildings that are online today. The biggest risk would be when they make the transi-
120 

tion to put the new west plant online. At that point, they would 

take the existing west plant offline so they could drain the pipes 

and then attach the new pipes, and you’d be in danger, if you had 

to try to start up one of the new chillers sooner than you want to, 

and you’d have to get York, the manufacturer of the chillers, in 

there to help you. 

Now, I understand that AOC is working with York now and setting up those contingency plans so that if it happens, they can respond to it. There would probably be some cost associated with it, 

but it’s doable. 

On the completion date, my understanding is, first, that I think 

Bob would prefer to have chilled water in January/February 2006, 

and not March. So, if we don’t get chilled water down there—because of the utility tunnel, not because of the Capitol Power 

Plant—until March, it may affect his ability to hit September or 

December, because it affects dehumidification, like we talked about 

last month. 

Also, you were talking about the commissioning and schedules. 

What you heard a few minutes ago was that the commissioning 

still hasn’t been fully integrated into the schedule. And you’ve 

heard us harping, several months now, about a fully integrated 

schedule. 

Senator ALLARD. Yes. 

Mr. DORN. That’s one of the risks there. 

INTEGRATED SCHEDULE

The other two things that AOC has been working on developing 

since our last hearing, but that are still not integrated into this 

master schedule, would be the House and Senate shell space and 

operations. They do have good independent schedules now, but they 

haven’t been integrated, and that integration could further affect 

the master schedule. 

Senator ALLARD. What about his comments on integrating those 

schedules? 

Mr. Hixon. 

Mr. HIXON. Mr. Chairman, the schedule for the House and Senate space was going to be integrated into the August schedule. 

There are about 1,000 activities. But, as they tried to integrate it, 

it was not working well, so they generated the August schedule 

without the expansion space. They are, over the next couple of 

weeks, integrating that in, so, when we run the schedule at the end 

of September, we should have all that included. 

In addition to that, we’re integrating the operations schedule activities. There are about 450 items there, so all of those are being 

included. So, we should have all of those parts included in the 

schedule here in the next—next time we run it. 

Senator ALLARD. All right. I want to talk a little bit about the 

upcoming milestones. What major milestones are we going to have 

when we come up to our next hearing, on October 18? The integrated schedule would be one. 

Mr. HIXON. The—other than those activities that we’re currently 

reflecting on the schedules, we’ve got the wall stone for the upper 

level assembly rooms 1 and 2, and we’re also looking at roof for the 

area in the utility tunnel. What’s—other than those activities as 
121 

things we can point out, what’s of particular interest to us is being 

able to get the mechanical piping started in the utility tunnel. 

They’re looking at alternatives to that, to manufacture the pipe in 

longer lengths than they were originally planning to, which would 

leave the roof open a little longer in the utility tunnel, but that 

would expedite the installation by reducing the number of field 

welds, which would permit installation to be started earlier. So, 

we’re looking to do some rework of the scheduled activities for the 

mechanical portion of the utility tunnel to see if we can use that 

to improve the overall schedule for that particular activity. 

Senator ALLARD. Okay. 

Then, you expect to have these complete by the time—— 

Mr. HIXON. Well, the—— 

Senator ALLARD [continuing]. Our next meeting happens, on October 18? 

Mr. HIXON. We won’t have those—either of those completed. We 

were just going to add those to the list of items that we’re currently 

tracking. So, most of the list that we had, currently, that GAO is 

reporting on, as well, we’ve got a number of activities that are not 

finished. They’re started, but they’re not finished yet. And a couple 

that have not started. Primarily, those activities all relate to the 

completion of the installation of stone in the Orientation Theater 

and the installation of stone in the Auditorium. The Auditorium 

stone was delayed because of some elevation issues, where we were 

off by five-eighths to an inch, and those have been chipped out, and 

the installation can now commence. But we’ve lost some time in 

commencing that work. 

So, those are some of the activities that we had tracked earlier 

as starting and finishing that we’d be reporting on their completion. 

Senator ALLARD. Okay. 

We have gotten through this hearing without having to be interrupted by a vote. I’m pleased about that. Do any of you have any 

other comments before we wrap up the hearing? 

Yes, Mr. Ungar? 

Mr. UNGAR. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I think it’s very important for 

AOC and the CVC team to take a real hard, rigorous look at the 

entire schedule before your next hearing, or around that time, to 

not only look at the areas that were added by the HVAC system 

and the fire protection system, but the other activities, as well— 

as I mentioned, the stone and the finishing—to make sure that you 

have a good, solid, realistic schedule, that’s complete, that we can 

all look at and rely on now for the rest of the project, subject to 

natural changes that would take place. 

Senator ALLARD. I think that’s a wonderful suggestion. Do we 

have any concerns, Mr. Hixon, on that suggestion? 

Mr. HIXON. No, sir. We’re certainly doing that right now. The 

focus has been on these commissioning activities that we’ve folded 

in, frankly, surprised us with the impact that they had. But, no, 

we’ll—we will work through those and look at the balance of the 

schedule. I’ll ask McDonough Bolyard Peck to look at that, as well, 

so that—— 
122 

NOVEMBER HEARING PREPARATION

Senator ALLARD. That’s a question you might expect at the next 

hearing: What’s going to be happening in our November meeting? 

If you’d keep that in mind while you’re thinking in those terms, 

and be prepared for that answer when it comes up in the next 

meeting. 

Mr. HIXON. Yes, sir. 

Senator ALLARD. Yes, Mr. Hantman? 

CONSTRUCTION QUALITY

Mr. HANTMAN. One more thing, Mr. Chairman. I would like to 

thank GAO, and specifically the comment that Terry Dorn made 

earlier, that we all recognize this is an important and a historic 

project, and it’s a fine project, something, I think, that the Congress and the American people are going to be proud of when we 

get it finished. The issue of the scheduling and meeting those 

bumps in the road, and working together to make sure that we get 

over those bumps in a good way, is important, and I think that’s 

largely what we’re talking about. And if you do have the time, I 

would welcome, again, your inspection tour of the visitor center. 

Look at the quality of work we’re building here. This is going to 

be something that’s going to last for many generations. 

Senator ALLARD. I’ve been assured by your testimony here that 

the quality of the work’s going to remain there. I remain concerned 

that things get put off, when, if we’d been dealing with them earlier, perhaps we wouldn’t have as many problems. So, I just hope 

that we do everything we can to try and get a jump on it. I understand your testimony, where you think that things can be done concurrently. Perhaps those have not been taken into account. I hope 

you’re right. We’re looking forward to seeing how this comes out. 

So far, what GAO has suggested to this subcommittee, has developed. So we get concerned at this point in time, about assurances 

that things are going to happen. And when there’s been a difference between the Architect of the Capitol and the GAO, GAO’s 

concerns have come to fruition. So, I do hope that we can get some 

realistic expectations here as we move toward closure on September 15. 

SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

I appreciate your taking the time with this subcommittee to testify, both of you. I think that this is a very important project, and 

I think it’s important that we do everything we possibly can to get 

it done on time, and avoid cost overruns. 

Thank you very much for your participation in this hearing. 

[Whereupon, at 11:35 a.m., Thursday, September 15, the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of the 

Chair.] 
(123) 

PROGRESS OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE 

CAPITOL VISITOR CENTER 

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 18, 2005 

U.S. SENATE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH, 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met at 10:28 a.m., in room SD–138, Dirksen 

Senate Office Building, Hon. Wayne Allard (chairman) presiding. 

Present: Senator Allard. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR WAYNE ALLARD

Senator ALLARD. The subcommittee will come to order. 

We meet today for our fifth hearing this year on the progress of 

the Capitol Visitor Center (CVC). We welcome once again Architect 

of the Capitol Alan Hantman, CVC Project Director Bob Hixon, and 

GAO’s representatives, Bernard Ungar and Terrell Dorn. 

Since our last hearing, progress has been made in some areas, 

such as completing an integrated schedule, but work continues to 

fall behind in such activities as the utility tunnel and stone installation. Only 3 of the 11 milestones have been completed in the last 

month and none were on time. 

In our September hearing, GAO made a number of recommendations, including the need for the Architect to undertake a rigorous 

evaluation of the schedule, the need for the Architect of the Capitol, along with its project manager Gilbane, to determine the 

causes of delays and take appropriate action, and the need for AOC 

to notify Congress of scope changes or plans to accelerate work. We 

look forward to hearing about how the Architect of the Capitol is 

meeting these recommendations. 

While we had anticipated having a discussion on the updated estimate of the cost to complete the Capitol Visitor Center project, we 

understand that GAO has not been able to undertake their review 

because the schedule is still in flux. 

Let me mention that we have tentatively set the next hearing 

date for November 15 and we will be working with Senator Durbin 

to finalize this shortly. 

Now I would like to turn to you, Mr. Hantman, for your testimony, to be followed by GAO’s testimony. 
124 

STATEMENT OF ALAN M. HANTMAN, FAIA, ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL 

ACCOMPANIED BY BOB HIXON, PROJECT DIRECTOR, CAPITOL VISITOR CENTER, ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL 

Mr. HANTMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning. I 

welcome this opportunity to update you on the status of the Capitol 

Visitor Center project, the key issues that were discussed in our 

last hearing, and the comments that you addressed in your opening 

statement as well. In line with those comments, there is clearly a 

concern regarding the time gap between our projection of having 

the CVC operational next December and GAO’s expectation of an 

opening in mid-2007. 

While we continue to acknowledge and work to resolve the challenges and potential risks that are still ahead, 2 weeks ago our 

general contractor, Manhattan, submitted a revised schedule in 

line with our past discussions, and this schedule now incorporates, 

as you indicated, the expansion spaces for the House and the Senate. It incorporates the operations spaces. 

Now, what this does is it takes us from about 4,500 issues that 

need to be correlated on the schedule to well over 6,500 activities. 

But it is important to note, Mr. Chairman, that Manhattan, in developing this new schedule, has incorporated the input from all of 

their subcontractors. So this is not a pie in the sky thing; it is a 

very detailed schedule. It significantly improves upon their August 

schedule. 

The issue of sequencing is something that we have talked about, 

the commissioning of all the life safety and fire safety systems. 

Those are the issues that primarily were moved back. In fact, in 

their August schedule they talked about a February 2007 completion. They are now talking about, including commissioning, of a December 2006 completion. 

But this schedule is currently being evaluated by our fire marshal and by Gilbane, our construction manager, to assure adequate 

durations and appropriate system commissioning. Now, while this 

review is going to take another 6 to 8 weeks or so, and of course 

GAO will be looking at that as well, we will update you at the next 

hearing on the progress of taking a look at this fully integrated and 

expanded schedule. 

In light of these schedule adjustments and the refinements and 

the risks identified—and clearly the risks you talked about are still 

there: the commissioning process, East Capitol Street tunnel, the 

stone issues—we continue to acknowledge that December 2006 remains a more prudent date for public opening than the September 

2006 date that we talked about originally. 

KEY MANAGEMENT ISSUES

I would like to briefly discuss the two key management initiatives that you referred to. First of all, as we reported last month, 

a risk assessment by McDonough Bolyard Peck (MBP) had identified current and potential future risk items. To date, we have conducted two follow-up working sessions as part of the review process 

to develop a comprehensive risk management and mitigation plan 

for each risk item. This is an ongoing, very positive process; keeping us focused on actual and potential problems. 
125 

Second, the cost-to-complete assessment that you referred to was 

completed last week and it has been circulated for review. No additional funds are contemplated in the report, although GAO, as you 

indicated, and my staff have not yet conducted a full evaluation. 

We will certainly review that in November. 

In terms of cost, Mr. Chairman, I think it is important to note 

that we are on the cutting edge of trying to reconcile often conflicting code criteria related to fire and life safety with new and 

evolving security criteria so critical, and in some respects, Mr. 

Chairman, unique to this project. Life safety codes that were written in the 1990s never anticipated such in-depth security criteria 

in places of public assembly, such as the CVC. Additional costs, as 

GAO has pointed out, certainly have accrued to the project as we 

have resolved and worked through these issues, and we believe we 

are there at this time. 

CAPITOL VISITOR CENTER EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

In terms of operations, Mr. Chairman, let me update you on two 

key initiatives. First of all, we have obtained the necessary leadership approvals on the language for the position description for the 

CVC executive director. We expect to advertise the position shortly, 

with the goal of hiring in January 2006. What we have done, Mr. 

Chairman, is we have broken out this individual position, and we 

will be talking with you shortly about another half dozen associated positions that we believe are key to get on board as soon as 

possible. The rest of the positions, as we have been talking with 

both Appropriations Committees about, will be brought on as we 

are more sure that we have a coordinated schedule and the construction actually can support this. That way we will not have people waiting around for the visitor center to open and they are not 

brought on inappropriately early. 

FOOD SERVICE CONTRACT

The second operations initiative, Mr. Chairman, relates to the 

CVC food service contract. Based on the congressional mandate 

that internal functions be reviewed for possibly more efficient external contracting, it is prudent for us to consider whether Senate 

restaurant services should be provided through a private contractor. The House of Representatives has also reviewed their food 

services operations and as a result this initiative includes options 

for inclusion of both House and Senate food services under a single 

CVC food services contractor. 

After having briefed all Senate restaurant staff on this initiative, 

we issued a request for proposal, an RFP, on September 26 to solicit interest from food services contractors. The RFP process will 

take several months to complete and, once potential contractors 

submit their proposals, they will be evaluated to determine which 

options may provide the best value to the Government. We will 

have follow-up meetings with Senate restaurant staff as this process moves forward and as decisions are made to answer any questions they may have. 

Mr. Chairman, before I close I would like to show you several 

photos of the status of construction in critical areas of the project. 
126 

CONSTRUCTION STATUS

First of all, Mr. Chairman, the stonework in the Great Hall is 

truly beautiful. As more stone goes in and the quality and the 

shape of the spaces become more and more evident, this is something that will resonate through the duration of the project. Now, 

as we complete the stone on the columns, as you see in this shot, 

we will be assembling scaffolds in the adjacent areas to allow work 

to begin on the Great Hall ceiling, and we expect that ceiling work 

to begin next month. 

We now have some 24 mason teams on site, compared to the 20 

who were working at the time of our last hearing, and the stone 

contractor is still continuing an aggressive pursuit of additional 

masons. 

On the service level, Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to report that 

all of the major equipment is now installed and crews, as shown 

here, are making the final duct connections to the air-handling 

units and fans, piping connections to equipment, final electrical 

connections to equipment and electrical panels. 

Permanent power has now been brought in and temporary power 

is not being used any more. As a consequence, we are going to 

begin turning on the air-handling unit fans this week, which will 

ultimately provide fresh air throughout the facility. Mr. Chairman, 

this is a major accomplishment. These are critical areas that could 

have seriously impacted the project if not properly thought through 

and executed. It is truly impressive and I look forward to showing 

it to you when we have our tour. 

On the next board, inside the expansion space the contractor continues to make good progress on both the House and the Senate 

sides, and work continues on schedule. We are pleased so far with 

the aggressive pace of construction in these areas. Crews here are 

busy installing metal stud walls, drywall, ductwork, and electrical 

rough-in. 

Overall, Mr. Chairman, inside the CVC, despite some of the 

delays that have occurred and the need for resequencing of work, 

the contractor has consistently provided an excellent quality of 

work, not only in mechanical and electrical work, but also in the 

installation and application of stone wall, stone, masonry, and plaster. 

On the next board, Mr. Chairman, outside the facility we see 

that our historic preservation contractor continues to install the 

stone for the historic lanterns and the fountains, while workers 

continue placing the granite pavers in adjacent areas. In addition, 

on the major part of that photograph you can see that we have 

begun to set stone on the monumental steps on the north side of 

the CVC entrance. On the Senate plaza, crews are busy placing 

concrete to prepare the plaza for granite stone pavers. Mr. Chairman, this work is transforming the plaza into a high-quality pedestrian zone worthy of being called the front door to our Capitol. 

Last, on East Capitol Street, with respect to our tunnel, work 

has continued there with excavation and piling work nearing completion. An additional subcontractor has been brought on board to 

expedite concrete work at First Street. While, as you know, we did 

encounter additional unforeseen conditions in September, the con-
127 

tractor has made significant progress. Crews, as you can see here, 

began in September installing large 40-foot long sections of steam 

and chilled water pipes inside the tunnel, and that is clear and 

that work is continuing appropriately. 

Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, the project is moving forward on 

many fronts. When it is completed, the visitor center will provide 

all visitors to the Capitol with a state of the art, accessible facility 

that will welcome them respectfully and securely while also providing them with films, exhibits, and computers, to help them learn 

about Congress and its role in our democracy. 

I welcome the opportunity to review and discuss this historic 

project and am happy to answer any questions you might have. 

Senator ALLARD. Thank you for your testimony, Mr. Hantman. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ALAN M. HANTMAN, FAIA 

This statement provides an update on the progress of the Capitol Visitor Center 

project and the key issues that were discussed at the previous Senate hearing on 

September 15. A brief update on the status of construction follows. 

CONSTRUCTION UPDATE

In the Great Hall, stone has been installed up to the ceiling on the north, south, 

and west walls and masons are now setting stone on the Great Hall columns. As 

crews complete the stone on the columns, they will begin to assemble scaffolds in 

the adjacent areas to allow work to begin on the Great Hall ceiling, and that work 

is expected to begin next month. As more stone goes in, the quality and shape of 

the spaces becomes more and more evident. 

Overall, the stone contractor continues to increase the number of mason teams 

working on the project. There are now 24 mason teams on site compared to the 20 

that were working at the time of the previous hearing. The stone contractor is continuing an aggressive pursuit of additional masons to keep pace with the amount 

of stone still to arrive or awaiting installation. Attached to this written statement 

is Manhattan’s October 7th statement concerning the stone injunction that remains 

in place. 

On the Service Level, all of the major equipment is now installed and crews are 

making the final duct connections to the air handling units and fans, piping connections to equipment, and final electrical connections to equipment and electrical panels. The contractors also continue their transition from temporary to permanent 

power now that permanent power has been installed in both the House and Senate 

electrical vaults. As a consequence, crews will begin turning on the air handling 

unit fans this week, which will ultimately provide for fresh air throughout the facility. These are critical areas that could have seriously impacted the project if not 

properly executed. 

Inside the expansion space, the contractor continues to make good progress on 

both the House and Senate sides and work continues to track on schedule. The AOC 

is pleased thus far with the aggressive pace of construction in these areas. Crews 

are busy installing metal stud walls and drywall, ductwork and the electrical roughin. 

Overall, inside the CVC, the Sequence 2 construction is proceeding well as mechanical, electrical, plumbing and fire protection piping and associated elements 

continue to populate ceiling spaces throughout the facility. Despite some of the 

delays that have occurred and the need for resequencing of work, the contractor has 

consistently provided an excellent quality of work not only in mechanical and electrical, but also in the installation and application of wall stone, masonry and plaster. 

Outside the facility, work on the Plaza continues and an historic preservation contractor continues to install the stone for the historic lanterns and fountains while 

workers continue placing the granite pavers in adjacent areas. In addition, masons 

have begun to set stone on the monumental steps at the north side of the CVC entrance. On the Senate Plaza, crews are busy placing concrete to prepare the plaza 

for granite paving stones. This work is transforming the plaza into a high quality 

pedestrian zone worthy of being the front door to our Capitol. 
128 

On East Capitol Street, work has continued on the utility tunnel with excavation 

and piling work nearing completion at the intersection of First and East Capitol 

Street and complete at Second Street. The installation of formwork and reinforcing 

steel has started at Second Street and an additional sub-contractor has been 

brought on board to expedite concrete work at First Street. While crews did encounter some unforeseen conditions in September, the contractor has made significant 

progress installing the balance of the pre-cast tunnel and pipe supports, and crews 

began in September to install the large 40-foot-long sections of steam and chilled 

water pipes inside the tunnel. 

SCHEDULE UPDATE

The AOC recognizes that there is clearly concern regarding the time gap between 

the AOC’s projection of having the CVC operational next December and the GAO’s 

expectation for an opening three to six months later in 2007. While the AOC continues to acknowledge the challenges and potential risks still ahead, two weeks ago 

Manhattan submitted a revised schedule that now includes the House and Senate 

expansion space as well as operational activities. This revised schedule now reflects 

an increase from 4,500 activities to some 6,500 activities and includes full input 

from their sub-contractors. This schedule significantly improves upon Manhattan’s 

August schedule, primarily in the sequencing of commissioning activities, and brings 

the total completion date, including commissioning, back to December 2006. This 

schedule is currently being evaluated by the Fire Marshal and the CVC construction 

manager, Gilbane, to assure adequate durations and system commissioning sequencing. While this review will require six to eight weeks to complete, the AOC will update the Committee on progress at the November hearing. 

In light of the schedule adjustments and refinements discussed, and the risks 

identified, including the possibility of delays occurring during the commissioning 

process, the AOC continues to believe that December 2006 remains a more prudent 

date for a public opening than does September 2006. Further, a December opening 

would also provide additional time to staff operations personnel and establish operational policies and procedures. The recommended staffing would proceed in line 

with the fully coordinated schedule and actual construction progress so that portions 

of the staff were not hired too far in advance of the public opening. 

MANAGEMENT INITIATIVES

Following is a brief discussion of the status of two key management initiatives. 

First, as reported last month, a Risk Assessment by McDonough Bolyard Peck had 

identified potential future risk items. To date, the project team has conducted two 

follow-up working sessions as part of the review process to develop a comprehensive 

risk management and mitigation plan for each risk item. This is an ongoing process. 

Second, a Cost-to-Complete assessment was completed by McDonough, Bolyard 

Peck on October 11, 2005, and has been circulated for review. No additional funds 

are contemplated in the report, although GAO and AOC staff have not yet conducted a full evaluation, which will be provided at the November hearing. In terms 

of cost, it is important to note that the CVC project is on the cutting edge of trying 

to reconcile often conflicting code criteria related to fire and life safety with new and 

evolving security criteria so critical, and in some respects, unique to this project. 

Life safety codes written in the 1990’s never anticipated in-depth security criteria 

in places of public assembly, such as the CVC. Additional costs to the project have 

been incurred as the project team has worked through and resolved these issues. 

OPERATIONS INITIATIVES

Following is an update on two key initiatives related to CVC operations. First, the 

AOC has obtained the necessary leadership approvals on the language for the Executive Director position description and expects to advertise the position shortly with 

the goal of hiring the Executive Director by January 2006. This time frame would 

allow for the approximate 12-month period that the AOC operations consultant feels 

is necessary to meet operations staffing requirements and establish procedural policies necessary for a public opening at the end of next year. 

A second operations initiative relates to the CVC food service contract. Based on 

the Congressional mandate that internal functions be reviewed for possibly more efficient external contracting, it is prudent for all parties to consider whether Senate 

Restaurant services should be provided through a private contractor. The House of 

Representatives has also reviewed their food service operations, and as a result, options for inclusion of both House and Senate Restaurant food services under a single 

CVC food services contractor are included in this initiative. 
129 

Therefore, after having briefed all Senate Restaurant staff on this initiative, the 

AOC procurement division issued a Request For Proposals (RFP) on September 26th 

to solicit interest from food service contractors. Potential firms interested in performing this work will submit proposals on how they would do the work and financial implications. 

The RFP process will take several months to complete. Once potential contractors 

submit their proposals, they will be evaluated to determine which options may provide the best value to the government. The AOC will have follow-up meetings with 

Senate Restaurant staff as this process moves forward, and as decisions are made, 

to answer any questions they may have over the next year. 

In conclusion, the project is moving forward on many fronts and when it is completed, the Visitor Center will provide all visitors to the Capitol with a state-of-theart and accessible facility that will welcome them respectfully and securely, while 

also providing them with the tools to learn about the Congress and its role in our 

democracy. 

Senator ALLARD. Now we will call on Mr. Ungar. 

STATEMENT OF BERNARD L. UNGAR, DIRECTOR, PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE, GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE 

ACCOMPANIED BY TERRELL DORN, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, PHYSICAL 

INFRASTRUCTURE, GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE 

Mr. UNGAR. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Dorn will do our summary for us 

at this hearing and we will both be available for questions. 

Senator ALLARD. Okay, very good. 

Mr. Dorn. 

Mr. DORN. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for the 

opportunity to be here today to discuss our continued assistance to 

the subcommittee in its oversight of the Capitol Visitor Center. 

What I would like to do is briefly summarize our written statement, focusing on two issues, cost and schedule, and what needs 

to be done in those areas from our perspective; and then Mr. Ungar 

and I would be glad to answer any questions you may have for us 

about our written statement. 

Beginning with schedule, as Mr. Hantman has already indicated, 

progress is continuing to be made on the project in a number of 

areas and the building is going to be beautiful. Overall, however, 

that progress is not occurring at the pace necessary to complete the 

CVC construction in September 2006, which would lead to the 

opening in December 2006 as AOC hopes for. 

You have already pointed out, Mr. Chairman, that out of the 11 

milestones this month only 3 were complete and none of those on 

time, according to the April baseline schedule, and only 1 was completed on time compared to the revised June schedule. This continues a 3-month trend of not hitting the milestones, milestones 

from the contractor’s own schedule, from his list of critical activities that by definition must be completed on time for the project 

to remain on schedule. Progress is not being made at the pace necessary to complete construction in September. 

Coincidentally to having 11 milestones this month, we also have 

11 critical paths identified by Gilbane in the sequence 2 (S–2) contractor’s schedule. Four of the critical paths showed improvement 

this month, at least on paper, due to significant schedule resequencing and revisions by the sequence 2 contractor in his attempt to find a faster way to complete the commissioning, testing 

and balancing, and fire marshal-related tasks. On the remaining 

critical paths, related to the utility tunnel and the stonework, the 

schedule actually slipped another couple weeks, in spite of the ad-
130 

1See GAO, Capitol Visitor Center: Schedule Delays Continue; Reassessment Underway, GAO– 

05–1037T (Washington, D.C.: September 15, 2005). 

ditional masons that were on site. Again, progress is not being 

made at the pace necessary to complete the construction in September. 

The significant revisions to the sequence 2 contractor schedule, 

that I mentioned a moment ago are in the areas that we discussed 

last month as needing revision and the contractor is giving it his 

best shot, even proposing to do work out of its normal sequence. 

We applaud the contractor’s willingness to find creative ways to 

move the project along and do not disagree with what he is doing, 

and we also agree that some of the time can be recovered. However, compressing the schedule and possibly doing some activities 

out of sequence certainly raises the risk level and the need for improved coordination. 

As we recommended again last month, it is very important for 

AOC and Gilbane to rigorously examine the schedule, particularly 

the optimistic durations and the resource loading, including not 

only HVAC and fire protection systems, but also the stone and finishing activities. This has still not been done. Until the CVC team 

completes the analysis of the schedule, the schedule settles down 

and a realistic completion date is set, the team is almost flying 

blind, not able to see more than a few weeks down the road, and 

surprises will continue. Again, we strongly urge that AOC and 

Gilbane devote sufficient resources to this scheduling effort so that 

a credible schedule is available to the team. We have not seen anything in the last month to change our prediction of a CVC completion in the spring or summer of 2007. 

Last, on the cost, as Alan noted, the McDonough Bolyard Peck 

final cost-to-complete estimate was received by us last week and 

our evaluation has begun. However, the cost to complete will not 

be accurate until a completion date is known. So, again, it gets 

back to the fact that we need to get a completion date and the 

schedule set. 

This concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman, and I would like to 

thank you for the chance to come here and discuss our work with 

you, and we are available to answer any other questions you may 

have. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF BERNARD L. UNGAR

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: We are pleased to be here 

today to assist the Subcommittee in monitoring progress on the Capitol Visitor Center (CVC) project. Our remarks will focus on (1) the Architect of the Capitol’s (AOC) 

progress in managing the project’s schedule since the Subcommittee’s September 15 

hearing on the project, (2) issues associated with the CVC’s fire protection system, 

and (3) the project’s costs and funding.1 Our ability to fully address these issues is 

limited by two important factors. First, AOC’s sequence 2 construction contractor’s— 

Manhattan Construction Company—September 2005 schedule reflects a number of 

significant changes, and AOC has not yet had the opportunity to fully evaluate 

these changes. Second, neither AOC nor its construction management contractor— 

Gilbane Building Company—has completed the evaluation of elements of the project 

schedule that we recommended during the Subcommittee’s September 15 hearing. 

Thus, while we will discuss the schedule’s status today, we will not be able to provide specific estimated completion dates until AOC and its construction management contractor complete their assessments and we have the opportunity to evaluate them. Similarly, while we will discuss the status of the project’s costs and fund-
131 

2 AOC set September 15, 2006, as the contractual date for completing the base project’s construction and for opening the CVC facility to the public. The House and Senate expansion spaces 

were scheduled to be completed after that date. AOC set the September contract completion date 

in November 2004, when it reached agreement with the contractor on a new date for starting 

sequence 2 that reflected the delays experienced on sequence 1. On September 6, 2005, AOC 

informed Capitol Preservation Commission representatives that it still expected the base 

project’s construction to be substantially complete on September 15, 2006, but was postponing 

the date for opening the facility to the public to December 15, 2006, so that it could complete 

system tests, minor punch-list work, and preparations for operations. 

ing today, we will wait until the project schedule is fully reviewed and stabilized 

and we have had an opportunity to evaluate AOC’s consultant’s, McDonough 

Bolyard Peck (MBP), cost-estimation work before we comprehensively update our 

November 2004 estimate of the cost to complete the project. 

Our remarks today are based on our review of schedules and financial reports for 

the CVC project and related records maintained by AOC and its construction management contractor; our observations on the progress of work at the CVC construction site; and our discussions with CVC project staff (including AOC, its major CVC 

contractors, and representatives of MBP), AOC’s Chief Fire Marshal, United States 

Capitol Police (USCP) representatives, and officials responsible for managing the 

Capitol Power Plant (CPP). We did not perform an audit; rather, we performed our 

work to assist Congress in conducting its oversight activities. 

In summary, AOC and its construction contractors have made progress in managing the schedule and accomplishing work since the Subcommittee’s September 15 

CVC hearing, but additional delays have been encountered. Work on all interior levels of the CVC, various sections of the House and Senate expansion spaces, the 

plaza, and the utility tunnel has continued. However, additional delays have occurred in a number of areas. For example, despite an increase in the number of 

stone masons working on the project in September, the project lost about 2 weeks 

on interior stone work installation and a similar amount of time on the utility tunnel. 

Moreover, some revisions have been made to project activities and schedules, but 

these revisions have not been fully evaluated. The sequence 2 contractor revised the 

manner in which the HVAC and fire protection systems’ commissioning work and 

acceptance testing would be done, which changed this contractor’s scheduled completion date for the base project to December 11, 2006, from a completion date of February 26, 2007, in the contractor’s August schedule. However, neither AOC nor its 

construction management contractor has had time to fully evaluate these revisions. 

In addition, AOC’s construction management contractor has now integrated into the 

project’s September 2005 schedule a number of recently prepared component schedules, including schedules for preparing for CVC operations and House and Senate 

expansion space construction. This integrated project schedule shows the base 

project as being ready for opening to the public by mid December 2006 and a completion date of February 26, 2007, for the House and Senate expansion spaces.2

However, neither AOC nor its construction management contractor has fully evaluated the activity durations or adequacy of resource levels shown in the base project’s 

schedule as we recommended in our September 15 statement. Also, the September 

2005 schedule does not yet fully reflect input from AOC’s Chief Fire Marshal on 

commissioning or testing and inspection activities. Thus, we are not now in a position to estimate a specific completion date, and our views should be regarded as preliminary at this time. With this qualification in mind, we have not seen recent evidence that would change our preliminary view that a base project completion date 

in 2006 will be difficult to achieve and that construction completion in early to mid 

2007 is more likely unless AOC and its contractors take extraordinary action or 

change the project’s scope, which could result in additional costs to the Government. 

Our view is based on the schedule slippages that have already occurred, the views 

of project personnel that several activities (such as interior wall stone installation 

and interior finish work) are likely to take longer than shown in the schedule, the 

large number of activities that the current project schedule shows as being at risk 

of causing the project’s completion date to slip, and the risks and uncertainties that 

continue to face the project. While we view the increased number of stone masons 

as quite positive, it is not clear whether the contractor will be able to maintain a 

sufficiently high number of masons on the site or whether sufficient stone supplies 

will be available on time given the problems that have been experienced in this regard. AOC and its construction manager expect to have their evaluations of the sequence 2 contractor’s schedule changes, scheduled activity durations, and proposed 

resource levels done by the end of this year. We will re-evaluate the project schedule 

and inform the Subcommittee of our results after AOC and its construction manage-
132 

ment contractor have what they consider to be a reasonably stable integrated schedule. 

The design of the CVC’s fire protection system has undergone a number of 

changes—largely to reconcile conflicts between security and life and fire safety requirements—and in a number of instances has been the focus of considerable debate 

among stakeholders (e.g. CVC project team members, AOC’s Chief Fire Marshal and 

AOC fire protection engineers, and USCP representatives). Changes to the system’s 

design and scope have resulted in about $900,000 in cost increases so far and could 

result in additional increased costs of about $4.4 million based on anticipated 

changes as of September 30, 2005. The bulk of the potential $5.3 million cost increase stems from two factors—a change in the manner smoke will be kept from 

egress stairwells that was requested by AOC’s Chief Fire Marshal and agreed to by 

the stakeholders and which resolves a conflict between security and life and fire 

safety requirements, and a disagreement between AOC and a contractor over contract requirements for certain detection devices. The increased cost figure could 

change significantly, however, because some CVC project team members believe 

that the estimated costs for these changes are too high, costs for all proposed or anticipated changes have not yet been fully evaluated, and negotiations relative to the 

estimated $4.4 million in anticipated changes have not been completed. We have 

discussed the costs associated with the stairwell change with AOC, and it has 

agreed to fully evaluate the situation before it executes any additional contract 

modifications for this change. Based on our discussions with the CVC project team, 

AOC’s Chief Fire Marshal, and USCP representatives, it appears that the fire protection system design is now essentially complete and agreed to by all the stakeholders. Finally, coordination problems have existed between the CVC project team 

and AOC’s Chief Fire Marshall in arranging for inspections of completed work, but 

steps are being taken to resolve the problems. 

We have not updated our interim estimate of a cost of between $525.6 million and 

about $559 million to complete the project, which we reported at the Subcommittee’s 

September 15 CVC hearing, because AOC’s consultant just completed its updated 

cost estimate and we have not yet had the opportunity to evaluate it, and because 

the project schedule has not yet stabilized. As soon as we evaluate MBP’s report 

and the project schedule stabilizes, we will begin our work to reassess the reasonableness of project completion dates and comprehensively update our cost-to-complete estimate. No additional funding beyond the $527.9 million for CVC construction and the $7.8 million that remained available for CVC operations or construction 

that we reported at the Subcommittee’s last CVC hearing has been provided for the 

CVC. 

Project Schedules Have Been Revised but Not Fully Evaluated 

While work in several areas has moved forward since the Subcommittee’s September 15 CVC hearing, additional delays have been encountered, and project 

schedules have been revised but not fully reviewed or evaluated. Construction work 

has continued on the CVC, the East Front, the plaza, the House and Senate expansion spaces, and the utility tunnel since the Subcommittee’s September 15 hearing. 

For example, wall stone installation work has continued in the great hall, the orientation theaters, and the auditorium, and the number of stone masons working in 

the interior of the CVC has increased since mid August. Some stone masons worked 

on weekends between mid August and mid September. In addition, excavation, concrete, and piping work in the utility tunnel has been proceeding, as has mechanical, 

electrical, and plumbing work in the CVC. 

On the other hand, between the Subcommittee’s September 15 hearing and October 12, the sequence 2 contractor completed work on only 3 of the 11 activities we 

and AOC have been tracking for the Subcommittee. None of these activities had 

been completed by the target dates shown in the contractor’s April 2005 baseline 

schedule, although one was completed by the date shown in the contractor’s June 

2005 schedule. (See app. I.) Furthermore, additional delays have occurred on interior and exterior stonework installation, the East Front, the utility tunnel, and the 

House connector tunnel. For example, according to AOC’s construction management 

contractor, during September, the sequence 2 contractor gained only 12 workdays 

on critical interior stonework and 10 workdays on the utility tunnel out of a possible 

21 days of work. According to the construction management contractor, stonework 

has been delayed due to a shortage of stone masons, a lack of critical pieces of stone, 

the need to do remedial concrete work in the orientation theaters and along the exterior concrete walls and interior concrete floors of the auditorium, and delays in 

getting shop drawings for stonework on the East Front. According to AOC’s construction management contractor, excavation work on First Street for the utility 

tunnel has been delayed due to unforeseen conditions and the need to stop work for 
133 

the former Chief Justice’s funeral at the Supreme Court, and unforeseen conditions 

have also delayed work on the House connector tunnel. 

During September, the sequence 2 contractor changed the manner in which the 

HVAC and Fire Protection system’s commissioning work and acceptance testing 

would be done, with the potential result of a time savings. The changes largely involved re-sequencing work and doing work concurrently that the August schedule 

showed would be done sequentially. According to the contractor’s revised schedule, 

these changes will result in an improvement of over 60 workdays and bring the 

scheduled completion date for this work to December 11, 2006, compared to the February 26, 2007, date shown in the August schedule. However, these changes have 

not yet been fully evaluated. AOC and its construction management contractor are 

reviewing the changes, as is AOC’s Chief Fire Marshal. AOC and its construction 

management contractor believe it will take about 30 to 60 days to complete their 

assessments, and AOC’s Chief Fire Marshal believes that he may have his evaluation done before the end of October. 

Altogether, the construction management contractor has identified a total of 11 

critical activity paths in the September schedule that will extend the base project’s 

completion date beyond AOC’s September 15, 2006, target date if expected lost time 

cannot be recovered or further delays cannot be prevented. In addition to the critical 

paths related to the HVAC system and the fire alarm system that are discussed 

above, examples of other base project critical path activities included in the contractor’s September schedule are utility tunnel and piping, stonework in the East Front, 

interior wall stone in such areas as the orientation theaters and atria, stonework 

in the auditorium and exhibit gallery, millwork and casework installation in the orientation theaters and atria, fabrication and installation of bronze doors, and penthouse mechanical work. Of the 11 critical activity paths in the September schedule, 

completion dates for 4 paths improved compared to the August schedule, but completion dates for the other 7 paths, including all of the stonework paths, slipped. 

For example, according to the construction management contractor, the September 

schedule shows all of the work associated with the fire alarm testing critical path 

being completed by November 22, 2006, an improvement over the August schedule’s 

date of February 26, 2007; the September schedule also shows all of the work associated with the interior auditorium wall stone critical path being completed by December 12, 2005, more than a month later than the August schedule’s date of November 2, 2005. The sequence 2 contractor’s September 2005 schedule indicates that 

construction work on the base CVC will be essentially complete by September 15, 

2006, and that remaining work between that date and December 11, 2006, will 

largely consist of testing, balancing, and commissioning the HVAC system; testing 

and inspecting the fire protection system; punch-list work; and preparing for operations. 

Most of the activities discussed above are among the activities we previously identified as likely having optimistic durations, suggesting that it could take even longer 

to complete them than shown in the project schedule. These activities served as the 

basis for the recommendation we made to AOC during the Subcommittee’s September 15 hearing that AOC rigorously evaluate the durations for the activities 

shown in the project schedule. According to AOC, it has not yet completed this evaluation. Moreover, we continue to believe that having such a large number of critical 

activity paths complicates project management and makes on-time completion more 

difficult. 

AOC’s construction management contractor has continued to integrate various 

component schedules into the CVC construction and summary schedules as they 

have been completed, and the integrated schedule contains about 6,500 activities. 

Consequently, AOC now has a summary schedule that integrates the completion of 

CVC and House and Senate expansion space construction with preparations necessary for opening the CVC to the public. This integrated summary schedule shows 

CVC construction as well as the activities necessary for opening the CVC to the public being completed by mid December 2006, the time AOC proposed last month for 

opening the CVC to the public. That is, AOC expects construction work on the base 

CVC project to be substantially completed by September 15, 2006, but expects such 

work as HVAC commissioning, fire protection system testing and inspection, punchlist work, and operations preparations work to be ongoing until December 15, 2006. 

According to AOC’s sequence 2 and construction management contractors, it is not 

yet clear whether expansion space construction will have progressed to the point 

where temporary work for fire safety once believed to be necessary to open the CVC 

to the public will no longer have to be done. They said that they are still analyzing 

the work associated with those areas where the base project interfaces with the expansion spaces and whether and how the need for temporary work for fire safety 

can be minimized or eliminated. 
134 

3 In September, the sequence 2 contractor increased the number of stone masons working on 

the project. For example, AOC’s construction management contractor reported that an average 

of 22 stone masons worked on the project each work day for the work week ending October 14, 

compared to an average of 14 each work day for the work week ending August 26. Stone masons 

also worked on several weekends, and the contractor plans to further increase the number of 

stonemasons during October and to re-sequence stonework to help mitigate a delay in the exhibit gallery. The contractor has hired an additional subcontractor to help construct the utility 

tunnel and is considering working longer hours or additional weekends to recover time. The contractor also plans to continue to evaluate the schedule to see what changes can be made to save 

time in a variety of areas. 

Although the sequence 2 contractor has taken, plans to take, and is considering 

various actions 3 to recover lost time and prevent or mitigate further delays, we continue to believe that the contractor will have difficulty completing construction before early to mid 2007. Our reasons for concern include the uncertainty associated 

with the September changes in the HVAC commissioning and fire protection system 

schedules that have not yet been fully reviewed, the schedule slippages to date, optimistic durations for a number of activities based on the views of CVC team members, the large number of activity paths that are critical, and risks and uncertainties 

that continue to face the project. AOC’s construction management contractor also 

points out that further delays could result from congressional requests to stop work 

due to high noise levels in the East Front and delays in completing CVC ceiling 

work necessary for the HVAC and fire protection systems, although the CVC team 

is considering ways to mitigate these risks. We also note that the Chief Fire Marshal has not yet approved the construction drawings for the fire protection system 

or the schedule for the system’s commissioning and testing. 

In addition to our views on the project’s September schedule changes and 

progress, we would also like to briefly discuss several schedule-related issues about 

which we have previously raised questions or issues or made recommendations to 

AOC. 

—We have been recommending for some time that AOC improve schedule management and analyze and document delays and the reasons and responsibilities 

for them on an ongoing basis—at least monthly. We have noted considerable improvements in the CVC team’s schedule analysis and management since the arrival of the construction management contractor’s project control engineer several months ago. Shortly after his arrival, the scope and depth of schedule analysis and management improved significantly, and AOC’s construction management contractor modified its monitoring process to capture information on 

delays. However, we continue to be concerned about AOC’s not having adequate 

information systematically compiled and analyzed to fully evaluate the causes 

and potential responsibilities for delays on an ongoing basis. In our view, not 

having this type of information on an ongoing basis is likely to create problems 

later on should disputes arise and knowledgeable staff leave. Also, in this regard, we have previously expressed concerns about the need for the project 

schedule to show resources to be applied to meet schedule dates. While the sequence 2 contractor has shown proposed resource levels for many activities, proposed resource levels have not been included for many of the new activities 

added to the project schedule. The lack of such information can complicate the 

analysis of delays, including their causes and costs. AOC agreed that these 

issues are important and said it would discuss them with its construction management contractor. 

—We have previously recommended that AOC develop risk mitigation plans to address risks and uncertainties facing the project. In July, AOC asked one of its 

consultants—MBP—to assist it in identifying risks and developing plans to address those risks. AOC has identified over 50 risks facing the project and established a process for addressing them. AOC has begun to develop and implement 

plans for managing these risks. As of October 11, AOC had developed plans for 

addressing 12 risks, such as unforeseen conditions associated with constructing 

the House connector tunnel, and fabrication and installation of custom bronze 

doors and windows. AOC said that it will continue to develop plans for the remaining risks. It also plans to discuss the risks at a weekly meeting and add 

new risks to its list and develop mitigation plans for them as they are identified. 

—The September schedule shows utility tunnel construction being completed in 

February 2006 and CVC’s air handlers beginning to operate at that time, assuming that they can get steam and chilled water from the Capitol Power Plant. 

During our September 15 testimony, we noted several problems associated with 

CPP that could adversely affect the CVC as well as other congressional buildings if not corrected or addressed. These problems included, for example, poten-
135 

tial delays in completing the West Refrigeration Plant Expansion Project, which 

is necessary to provide chilled water to the CVC; the removal from service of 

two chillers in the East Refrigeration Plant because of refrigerant gas leaks; fire 

damage to a steam boiler; and staffing and training issues associated with operating the new plant and the absence of a CPP director. Since the Subcommittee’s September 15 CVC hearing, the fire damage to the boiler has been repaired, and the two coal-burning boilers that were taken off line for maintenance had been put back on line; however, another maintenance problem occurred with one of the boilers and it had to be turned off for repairs, which AOC 

expects to have completed by the end of this week. Also, over the Columbus Day 

weekend, heavy rains caused damage to electrical equipment that resulted in 

a power outage affecting the entire plant. Power was restored within a few 

hours; however, because of damage to the electrical equipment, power is not 

available at certain locations within the plant. In particular, one of the chillers 

in the East Plant is inoperable because power cannot be provided to it. This incident prompted AOC to make a change that affects the West Refrigeration 

Plant Expansion Project. Specifically, AOC has decided to reconfigure the 

chilled water piping system to allow the West Plant to operate in isolation of 

West Plant Expansion. This change, which could result in an increase to the 

contract cost, will decrease CPP’s reliance on the older East Plant and will enhance its capacity to reliably provide chilled water to the CVC and other congressional buildings. Finally, AOC recently advertised the vacant director’s position. At this time, GAO has an active engagement to assess certain CPP issues, 

such as staffing and training for, and the estimated cost to complete, the West 

Refrigeration Plant Expansion Project. This engagement is being conducted as 

part of a separate review for the Subcommittee. 

—Although AOC determined that the sequence 1 work was substantially complete 

in November 2004, the sequence 1 contractor has continued to work on punchlist items. Since the Subcommittee’s September 15 CVC hearing, AOC’s construction management contractor added about 15 additional work items to this 

list, such as chipping concrete interfering with wall stone installation and repairing drains. According to AOC’s construction management contractor, the sequence 1 contractor has been making satisfactory progress in completing the 

punch-list work. 

Fire Protection System Issues Are in the Process of Being Resolved 

The CVC’s fire protection system is complicated, interfaces with security and 

other building systems, and encompasses a variety of subsystems and components, 

such as smoke and heat detectors, an alarm system, a sprinkler system, a smoke 

evacuation system, door locks that will open in the event of a fire, monitoring and 

control systems, emergency signage, lighting, communication, and a system for preventing smoke from entering stairwells—referred to as stair pressurization—to 

allow occupants to get out of the building. We have identified three issues related 

to the fire protection system, each of which we would like to briefly discuss. 

1. Evolving design.—The CVC’s fire protection system has undergone a number 

of design changes and has been the subject of debate among relevant stakeholders 

for a number of reasons, largely due to conflicts between security and life and fire 

safety requirements. According to AOC, the building codes governing the design of 

the CVC often conflict with security requirements, do not recognize the unique security needs of the Capitol, and are particularly silent when it comes to the integration of new air filtration technologies. In addition, AOC said that security requirements and the decision to add state-of-the art air filtration technology to the project 

when the construction documents were almost complete forced the project team to 

redesign all of the air handling systems in a compressed timeframe in order to 

maintain the overall schedule. It also forced the project team to devise a complex 

design solution with AOC’s Chief Fire Marshal and USCP while sequence 2 was out 

for bid as well as after the contract had been awarded. On October 5, we attended 

meetings of representatives from the CVC project team, AOC’s Fire Marshal Division, and USCP where issues surrounding the CVC’s fire protection system were 

discussed. Based on those discussions and information subsequently provided by 

AOC and USCP, it appears to us that the design of the CVC’s fire protection system 

is now essentially complete and agreed to by all of the relevant stakeholders. The 

CVC project team and the Chief Fire Marshal note, however, that not all of the shop 

drawings related to the fire protection system have been submitted or approved, and 

some issues could arise during the review process. 

2. Increased cost.—As of September 30, executed contract modifications and anticipated changes related to CVC’s fire protection system totaled about $5.3 million, 

with most of this amount, about $4.4 million, being estimated costs for anticipated 
136 

4 AOC had planned to use $100,000 of its fiscal year 2006 appropriation for CVC construction 

to move a fire alarm control panel in the Capitol building related to CVC construction but outside the CVC work area. AOC has decided to pay for this move with other funds, thus making 

the $100,000 available for other CVC construction purposes subject to approval of the House 

and Senate Committees on Appropriations. As we reported in September, AOC had also used 

about $805,000 in CVC operations funds for certain construction work that had been funded by 

the fiscal year 2006 construction appropriation. These funds also could be used for other CVC 

work subject to the Committees’ approval. 

changes that have not been fully evaluated or approved. Changes to the system’s 

design and scope already made have resulted in about $900,000 in cost increases. 

Costs for changes that have been made or that are anticipated have increased or 

are expected to increase for several reasons, but the bulk of the increases stems 

largely from two factors—changes requested by AOC’s Chief Fire Marshal aimed at 

ensuring that the system meets fire safety standards based on his interpretation of 

code requirements (an area where conflict existed between fire safety and security 

requirements) and a disagreement between AOC and a contractor on contract requirements regarding certain detection devices. The most costly change involving 

the security/fire safety conflict that the CVC team has agreed to relates to the manner in which fresh air will be brought into the building to pressurize stairwells to 

prevent smoke infiltration in the event of a fire. The estimated costs for this change 

(including the expansion space) amount to about $2.2 million, or over 40 percent of 

the estimated increased costs for the fire protection system. Differences of opinion 

among CVC team members exist on the magnitude of the estimated costs for this 

change. We have discussed this issue with AOC, and it has agreed to fully evaluate 

the cost before it executes additional contract modifications relating to stair pressurization. The final costs for the stair pressurization and detection devices in question 

as well as the other anticipated changes could change significantly from the estimated amounts once any open issues regarding costs are resolved. It is also possible 

that some of the proposed change orders include work items that are not related 

to the CVC’s fire protection system, and to the extent this situation exists, costs for 

such work items would not be attributable to the fire protection system. 

3. Coordination problems.—The CVC project team and AOC’s Fire Marshal Division have been experiencing difficulties arranging for timely inspections of completed work due to coordination problems involving the amount of notice and documentation needed before inspections can occur. To improve coordination, the CVC 

project team has been working with its construction management contractor and the 

Chief Fire Marshal to develop a systematic process for arranging for and documenting fire safety inspections and is considering hiring a consultant to help facilitate the coordination process. The Chief Fire Marshal has increased staffing devoted 

to the CVC and is planning to obtain contract support to help perform CVC inspections. The Chief Fire Marshal is also reviewing the sequence 2 contractor’s September 2005 schedule to determine whether the sequencing of work and the time 

allotted for fire safety and occupancy inspections are acceptable. 

Our Project Cost Estimate Update Awaits Assessment of Consultant Estimate and 

Schedule Stabilization; Funding Provided Has Not Changed Since September 

2005 

AOC’s consultant—MBP—finished its work last week to update the estimated cost 

to complete the project. We have not yet had time to evaluate MBP’s report. Also, 

as we said during the Subcommittee’s September 15 CVC hearing, we are waiting 

for the project schedule to stabilize before we begin our work to comprehensively 

update our November 2004 estimate of the cost to complete the project. Thus, we 

are not revising our interim updated estimated cost to complete the project of between $525.6 million and about $559 million that we discussed at the Subcommittee’s September 15 CVC hearing. As soon as we evaluate MBP’s report and the 

project schedule stabilizes, we will begin our work to assess the reasonableness of 

the scheduled completion dates for the CVC and the House and Senate expansion 

spaces and comprehensively update our estimate of the cost to complete the project. No additional funding beyond the $527.9 million for construction and the $7.8 million that was available for CVC construction or operations has been provided for the 

project since the Subcommittee’s September 15 hearing.4 As you may recall, Mr. 

Chairman, at your last CVC hearing, we expressed concern about possible duplication of work and costs in areas where the responsibilities of AOC’s CVC construction 

and operations contractors overlap, such as in designing wayfinding signage and the 

gift shops. AOC agreed to work with its operations planning contractor to clarify the 

contractor’s scope of work, eliminate any duplication, and adjust the operations contract’s funding accordingly. AOC told us that it has discussed these issues with its 

contractor and concluded that while no duplication of work or funding exists, it 
137 

needs to clarify the contract’s scope of work on wayfinding signage because it included more work than the contractor would actually do. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes our statement. We would be pleased to answer any 

questions that you or Members of the Subcommittee may have. 

APPENDIX I.—CAPITOL VISITOR CENTER CRITICAL CONSTRUCTION TARGET DATES SEPTEMBER 16- 

OCTOBER 18, 2005 

Activity Location 

April 2005 

Scheduled 

Finish Date 

June 2005 

Scheduled 

Finish Date 

Actual Finish Date 

Drill/Set Soldier Piles Sta. 0:00–1:00 ........................ Utility Tunnel ................ 6/08/05 8/23/05 9/21/05 

Wall Stone Area 9 Base ............................................. Great Hall ..................... 7/15/05 11/03/05 9/14/05 

10 Inch South Fire Line ............................................. Site ............................... 7/19/05 1/09/06 ....................

Excavate and Shore Sta. 0:00–1:00 .......................... Utility Tunnel ................ 7/21/05 10/05/05 ....................

Concrete Working Slab Sta. 0:00–1:00 ..................... Utility Tunnel ................ 7/26/05 10/10/05 ....................

Waterproof Working Slab Sta. 0:00–1:00 .................. Utility Tunnel ................ 7/29/05 10/13/05 ....................

Wall Stone Area 1 ...................................................... Congressional Auditorium.8/08/05 7/22/05 ....................

Wall Stone Area 2 ...................................................... Congressional Auditorium.8/22/05 8/05/05 ....................

Wall Stone Area 3 ...................................................... Congressional Auditorium.9/06/05 8/19/05 ....................

Wall Stone Area 5 1 Base ........................................... Orientation Theater ...... 9/13/05 9/28/05 ....................

Perimeter CMU Walls ................................................. Orientation Lobby ......... 9/20/05 9/16/05 ....................

1 This activity was not noted listed in the April schedule. All other activities were critical in the April schedule or became critical in subsequent schedules. 

Source: AOC’s April and June 2005 CVC sequence 2 construction schedules for the scheduled completion dates and AOC and its construction management contractor for the actual completion dates. 

Note: Actual completion information was obtained on October 12, 2005. 

Senator ALLARD. Thank you very much. I appreciate the panel 

being here with us this morning. I think it is important that this 

subcommittee continue to review carefully progress on the construction project, and hopefully we do this in a constructive manner, and I think your comments have been constructive. 

CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE

I know, Mr. Hantman, Mr. Hixon, it is frustrating at times when 

you have these unexpected problems. But I do think that the subcommittee has to have a thorough understanding of how we are 

progressing. I would like to urge you to get that schedule in place, 

because I see that as critical. 

In your testimony, Mr. Hantman, you indicated another 6 to 8 

weeks is required to thoroughly evaluate that schedule. We do 

want it precise as you can possibly get it, but I am curious to know 

why it is taking so long to get this finalized. 

Mr. HANTMAN. Mr. Chairman, we have been talking about an integrated schedule with all components coming into it for a while 

now. As you know, the expansion space contractor has come on 

board fairly recently and their input into the completion of the expansion spaces both for the House and the Senate has been a critical component that needed to be fed into it. So as a contractor determines their means and methods and their own sequencing of 

how they are going to get the job done, that gets done as the work 

is progressing. 

So they have now fed their information into the full schedule and 

that work, as you know, just happened fairly recently, or just started fairly recently. 
138 

OPERATIONS CRITERIA

The other end of it, Mr. Chairman, relates to the operations. 

Clearly, we have brought Zell Corporation back on board to talk 

about all of the operations criteria. The concern that you have mentioned in past hearings, talking about making sure that the operations issues are factored in; we now have some 500 or so items 

on operations that are factored into this fully integrated schedule. 

So while Mr. Dorn characterized us as flying blind a little while 

ago, the issue here really is that we have got a very thorough 

schedule that the contractor has committed to and that we need to 

evaluate from both the fire marshal’s perspective and from our construction manager’s perspective, to take a look at the reality, make 

sure the durations are reasonable. 

But this schedule I think, in most people’s experience, is more 

detailed and more coordinated than any they have seen pretty 

much in their professional careers. So we have really tried to dot 

those ‘‘i’s’’, cross those ‘‘t’s’’, and make sure that we are integrating, 

so that we can avoid problems down the road. 

BASE SCHEDULE

Senator ALLARD. Now, true, we have just brought on the expansion spaces for the House and the Senate and that is a new factor 

to bring in. But as far as base scheduling, it has been 1 year, has 

it not, when Manhattan came on board? I see Mr. Ungar is nodding 

his head. Perhaps maybe you can clarify this for the record, but I 

think it has been 1 year where we have had Manhattan on with 

sequence 2; actually we had the contractor start in November 2004. 

Am I correct in that, Mr. Ungar? 

Mr. UNGAR. Yes, Mr. Chairman, you are. 

Senator ALLARD. So again, we do not have a final base schedule. 

Mr. HANTMAN. Absolutely. 

CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE ASSESSMENT

Senator ALLARD. By the way, who is doing the schedule assessment and what is its scope and methodology? 

Mr. HANTMAN. Bob? 

Mr. HIXON. The schedule review, we have had McDonough 

Bolyard Peck working on it. They are going to be completing their 

review. They have started it and they generated some initial comments. 

McDonough Bolyard Peck is doing it as a consultant for us. In 

addition to that, Gilbane will be doing the review themselves. We 

have talked about if we have a separate group of people within 

Gilbane, not the current field staff but other staff, come in and do 

that evaluation as far as the durations and the logic within the 

schedule. 

The team themselves have been doing this review. The schedule 

itself, you are correct, it did come in in January, we received the 

new baseline schedule. That schedule has continued to evolve. 

What has occurred in the last month was primarily the integration 

of all of the commissioning activities, a number of activities, and 

that was all added in August. 
139 

We were expecting to have the review of the durations and logic 

completed by this hearing. However, when we got the report in, 

there was an inadequate amount of time to do it. There have been 

such significant changes to the commissioning activities that we 

need to have the fire marshal participate in that review. So that 

is why that has been put off. 

The integration of the schedule for the expansion space, as well 

as the operations, adds more detail. It will be reflected in some of 

the activities in construction, but more to ensure that they are well 

coordinated, not really changing the schedule itself. 

Senator ALLARD. I am curious about your methodology. Would 

you agree with me that if we could have at least a basic plan then 

as things change we can always incorporate those changes into the 

basic plan? 

Mr. HIXON. Absolutely, sir. That is exactly what we are doing. 

We had the base schedule in January. We have done some reviews 

of that and it has been improved. The original base schedule had 

broad periods of time. It would say, for example, install wall stone 

in the Great Hall. The detailed schedule now reflects 10 different 

areas of wall stone, so that it is broken down into durations that 

are small enough you can actually measure. 

So the original baseline schedule did not have as much detail as 

we felt was necessary to adequately monitor the project. As we develop more of these details, the schedule has grown. Then with the 

inclusion of all the commissioning activities, when those details 

were added in August, the schedule completion date became unacceptable and the contractor went back to look at that to see what 

was wrong with the logic that we were using. Now the contractor 

is satisfied that the schedule is perfect, but the fire marshal, the 

construction manager, and we have not had an opportunity to review that in detail. It only came in 11⁄2 weeks ago. So what we 

need is some time to get the fire marshal—the critical part of this 

is not the construction part. The construction should be done in 

September. The critical part is making sure we all thoroughly understand what the commissioning activities are that need to take 

place, so that the fire marshal’s input works well with the contractor’s plan for completion of facility. That is the piece that we are 

really working to try and pull together. 

Senator ALLARD. Mr. Ungar, do you believe that the Architect of 

the Capitol and Gilbane are doing all they should to reevaluate and 

finalize the schedule in a timely manner? 

Mr. UNGAR. Mr. Chairman, that is a question that we have right 

now. What we are looking for when we use the term ‘‘rigorous, aggressive assessment’’ is a real fact-based, data-based, expert review 

of the schedule. For example, on the stonework, what we had in 

mind would be having somebody knowledgeable about stonework 

looking at the actual experience of the project to date with the 

number of masons, the productivity, looking at what the durations 

are in the schedule, and making an assessment. Is this realistic, 

based on the experience of this project and the professional experience that the stonemasons might have? 

We have not seen that kind of assessment at this point. That is 

the type of assessment that we would be looking for. 
140 

OPENING DATE

Senator ALLARD. Mr. Hixon, Mr. Hantman, do you both believe 

that the December 2006 opening date is realistic, in light of this 

slippage in the area of the masonry work, and continued slippage 

on the utility tunnel? 

Mr. HANTMAN. As Bob Hixon just indicated, the contractor’s 

schedule does call for construction completion in September 2006. 

As I talked about in our last hearing and I reiterated a bit in my 

opening statement today, we believe that clearly the whole issue of 

the possibility of overlapping of commissioning activities and finishing work is the key to the opening date. 

With the construction completion basically still planned for September, the issue of operational staff coming on board and at that 

point in time, with construction basically complete but commissioning ongoing. The issue is to analyze, whether they can appropriately and safely come into the space and do their work in the 

shakedown and the practicing and setting things up while the commissioning goes on. We think that will be the case, and that is the 

kind of examination we are doing with the fire marshal and the 

construction manager. 

So the issue there again is heavy construction, including the 

stone, that we are looking at, as the schedule currently talks about, 

being completed basically in September. The issue there is again 

systems and making sure that the systems are shaken down and 

appropriately managed so that we can spend the next couple 

months making sure that it is ready for opening. 

STONEMASONS

Senator ALLARD. I can understand why we might be having problems with the stonemasons. There was a supply problem at the 

start, although I think maybe they could have planned a little better in knowing the amount of stone that they needed. 

Now we are having a hard time running down stonemasons. I 

guess we just do not have enough skilled stonemasons in the area 

that are available for the project. 

Mr. HANTMAN. That is true, Mr. Chairman. 

UTILITY TUNNEL

Senator ALLARD. That is not hard to understand and visualize. 

The problem I have understanding and visualizing is the utility 

tunnel. We had 21 days of work here and we only got 10 days out 

of that to actually work in there, so we lost 10 days of labor and 

construction in that utility tunnel. 

Maybe you would like to respond to that. When we have our 

tour, I would like to spend some time on the utility tunnel. 

Mr. HIXON. Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to respond to that. 

The utility tunnel has been impacted by different site conditions on 

a number of occasions, the last of which was another—not the last, 

but the previous one was a PEPCO vault. The latest thing is we 

encountered a concrete foundation and steel in the base of the excavation near the auditorium there at First Street. So we have had 

that. 
141 

We had the rainfall last week. The rainfall put us back 1 week 

for the area where we have got the excavation taking place. We 

need to be able to get the mud mat down so that the water does 

not affect us adversely. 

The good news is that two-thirds of the piping, the chilled water 

and steam pipe, is literally in the tunnel. It is to be welded there, 

but it has already been set in the tunnel so that the welding can 

take place, and that is very positive, what the mechanical contractor has been able to achieve. 

Also they have brought on an additional contractor to do the construction at First Street because their own force is, Manhattan’s 

force is, doing the concrete work at Second Street and at the 

bridge, the book tunnel. They do not have enough forces to be able 

to do both at the same time, and so we brought in—they brought 

in an additional contractor in order to make up for that lost time. 

Currently the projection is, the sum total from the original schedule is, that we would finish the construction December 7, if I have 

the date exactly right. It is about 1 week late. For all of these 

issues that we have encountered with differing site conditions, the 

contractor’s efforts in hours per day and weekends have been good 

enough to make up for most of these, so that the slippage, instead 

of being a number of weeks, is really now down to 1 week. 

What we are endeavoring to do as soon as we get the tunnel, so 

that the mechanical piping can go through, is see if they cannot expedite the installation of the piping. But of course, they cannot do 

that until they have a tunnel to construct it in. 

But the issues have been predominantly differing site conditions 

that have caused some redesigns and that is what the impact has 

been to the utility tunnel. 

UNFORESEEN CONDITIONS

Senator ALLARD. There must have been some things in the 

ground that were not properly documented and that is why they 

were a surprise to you when you came across them? 

Mr. HIXON. What was in the ground was neither documented— 

we for example ran into a fiber optic cable that was not reflected 

on the drawings, and you cannot detect that with a metal detector. 

We have run into duct banks that we should have been able to support that fell apart. There have been a number of issues. And when 

you run into the utilities, the utility companies then have to come, 

and you cannot touch their work until they finish doing their part 

of it. 

So those have been the things that have caused delays, plus this 

deep foundation that we encountered that no one knew was down 

there. So there have been a number of issues, unfortunately. 

SCHEDULE MAKEUP

Senator ALLARD. GAO told us last month that AOC would have 

to make up 1 day for every 8 remaining days between July 2005 

and September 2006. What is the current estimate of time to be 

made up? Let us go to GAO for that question. 

Mr. DORN. Mr. Chairman, I did not do that same metric this 

time. 
142 

Senator ALLARD. Okay. Well, maybe we can have that ready for 

the next hearing. 

Mr. DORN. Yes. 

Senator ALLARD. I thought that was an interesting metric and I 

think it was helpful to understand how we were progressing. 

Mr. DORN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. UNGAR. Mr. Chairman, if I might just add, the issue that you 

were last asking about I think is at the heart of the reason why 

we have a difference between GAO and AOC on when the project 

will be complete. As Mr. Hantman and Mr. Hixon said, the schedule shows that construction will be complete in September 2006. 

Our question is, is that a realistic and a credible schedule, given 

the slippages that have occurred so far and durations and the logic 

that exists in the schedule, for the work that is expected to be done 

in the next several months, such as the stonework, the millwork, 

and the casework? 

That is why we are so concerned about having a really good assessment of the schedule, because if that work is not scheduled to 

be done in a realistic period of time they cannot meet the September 15 date. 

Senator ALLARD. Maybe we can have a little more discussion at 

our next hearing on that, when we look at these makeup days. 

COST TO COMPLETE

Now, I would like to pursue this cost-to-complete issue. In last 

month’s hearing we were told that the cost to complete would be 

ready by this month’s hearing. Mr. Ungar, can you tell us why 

GAO has not been able to complete its review of the independent 

assessment of the cost to complete, and will you have it by next 

month’s hearing? 

Mr. UNGAR. Mr. Chairman, there are two reasons why we have 

not been able to complete our review. One is that AOC just last 

week received the final report from its consultant, McDonough 

Bolyard Peck, on the results of its review, and of course we needed 

to have that before we could start our review. So we will begin immediately to look at that report. 

But the other reason is that we do not feel it would be prudent 

to complete our work until we have a stable schedule, because a 

large part of the cost to complete is going to be dependent upon 

what a good solid estimate of the completion date is going to be 

and because a number of costs are driven by how long the project 

will continue, including expected delay costs and so forth. 

So we will basically start right away, as soon as we get, hopefully 

in December, a stable schedule that hopefully has been evaluated. 

We should then be able to finish the cost to complete, I would 

guess by your February hearing if you have one in February, at the 

latest. 

Senator ALLARD. We will have one in February. Count on it. 

Mr. UNGAR. Maybe before. 

Senator ALLARD. Do you have any preliminary information that 

you would like to share with us on that? Stick your neck out a little 

bit. 

Mr. UNGAR. Well, we have not updated our estimate since your 

last hearing, and I think we were around $526 million in terms of 
143 

cost to complete without risks, to around $559 million with risks 

and uncertainties. We have made a quick review of the MBP report 

and it is basically indicating MBP expects there to be an increase 

in the cost of sequence 2, basically for the reasons of the higher 

than expected pace of change orders that have taken place, some 

delay costs, and some additional costs that MBP is, as we are, identifying with respect to the CVC’s fire protection system. So it sees basically about an $8 million increase in the cost of sequence 2. But by the same token, MBP is estimating the expansion 

space would not cost as much as expected by about the same 

amount. So there would be an increase on the one hand and maybe 

a lesser expense on the other, according to the MBP report. 

We have not, as I said, thoroughly reviewed that. We do have 

some questions about that that we need to address and we will address. 

The other side of the coin is that, even with the increases, MBP’s 

report would indicate that there are sufficient funds made available right now to cover the costs that are estimated. 

BRONZE DOORS

Senator ALLARD. Mr. Hantman, he mentioned it is hard to put 

some of it together because of unforeseen problems that may occur. 

So this brings up the issue of the risk management plan. Can you 

give us any examples of the worst risks and actions taken to address those risks at this point in time, Mr. Hixon? 

Mr. HIXON. The example that probably comes to mind first is the 

bronze doors, which was brought up during our risk assessment by 

the Architect as an issue he was concerned about. We reviewed the 

status of the bronze doors, the status of the work and where they 

were in the production of those, found out that we did, in fact, have 

an issue that could be a problem if we did not jump on it right 

away. 

That issue has been reviewed. We have developed detailed schedules for the bronze doors. The issue there was UL testing of a door 

that had never been made before and going into production. So 

going through that risk assessment, identifying that particular 

item and pursuing that has been very beneficial for the project. So 

that is one example. 

Most of the rest of the examples we have are things that could 

be problems in the future and so we continue to monitor them to 

ensure that they do not become problems. 

Mr. HANTMAN. Many of the issues, Mr. Chairman, also deal with 

the commissioning and the testing of the systems, and this is what 

both we and GAO have been talking about and trying to work 

through. The major issue now with Manhattan’s new schedule is 

for us to make sure that those times are appropriate, the durations 

are appropriate. Again, that commissioning and testing will not 

begin until next summer, so we are trying to jump on it before it 

becomes a problem and make sure that we can resolve that and integrate that schedule appropriately. 

Senator ALLARD. Now, Mr. Hixon, on the bronze doors, those 

have to be approved by the Underwriters Laboratory, is that correct? 

Mr. HIXON. Yes, sir. 
144 

Senator ALLARD. Have they given you the approval yet? When do 

you expect that? 

Mr. HIXON. We have run the first test. They failed the test. They 

identified exactly what caused the failure. They will be running the 

test again on the 21st, in 3 days, and we fully expect to pass the 

test. It was an inner core issue, inner core of the door. So we feel 

very good that we will go on to production. 

About half the doors are fire-rated doors requiring UL approval. 

The other half do not. 

Senator ALLARD. I see, and so the tests are essential to have 

these fire-rated for the marshal? 

Mr. HIXON. For the portion that are fire-rated, they must pass 

the test. Since we have had one test and we have identified the 

problem with the core, they have made that change, and so we expect it to perform satisfactorily. 

CONSTRUCTION DELAY DOCUMENTATION

Senator ALLARD. Now, none of the 11 milestones, as both I point 

out in my testimony and we got from GAO, for the last month have 

been completed on time. Mr. Hixon, what progress has the Architect of the Capitol and Gilbane made in implementing GAO’s longstanding recommendation that it more systematically document 

delays to the project on an ongoing basis? 

Mr. HIXON. The documentation of delays has been a discussion 

with Gilbane. They are keeping those records on daily reports. 

What we have talked about is do we need to have something that 

summarizes the data monthly, so that we would have that information available to factually document delays either caused by differing site conditions or something that someone else caused. 

So we have got the base data. We have just not summarized that 

data into some kind of a monthly format. We have been having 

conversations on how best that should be done. 

Senator ALLARD. Now, I am under the impression that we do 

have a representative here from Gilbane Building Company. 

Mr. HIXON. That is correct. 

Senator ALLARD. Mr. Marvin Shenkler. 

Mr. HIXON. Yes, sir. 

Senator ALLARD. I would like to call him to the witness table just 

for a couple questions, if I might. 

STATEMENT OF MARVIN SHENKLER, GILBANE BUILDING COMPANY 

Senator ALLARD. Mr. Shenkler, the first question I have for you, 

do you believe the September 2006 date for planned completion 

date is realistic and achievable? 

Mr. SHENKLER. I think it is overly optimistic and I have indicated that prior. It is a very aggressive schedule. It is one which, 

given adequate resources, which so far we have been unable to obtain, in the way of stonemasons, for example, leads me to conclude 

that it is not likely to be accomplished by then. 

Senator ALLARD. Is there any hope that we will be getting more 

skilled masons into the area here that can help us get through the 

delays on the stonemason project? 

Mr. SHENKLER. There is a possibility. We have been advised by 

Manhattan that they are exploring ways of getting additional re-
145 

sources in the way of stonemasons here. And we have had increases from when we first started. We are up to around 23, 24 

stonemasons on a daily basis. We think we need to get to somewhere around 30 in order to recover the time that we have lost in 

order to complete on schedule. 

Senator ALLARD. Now, GAO has testified that it is critical to 

have a reasonable amount of time between the end of construction 

and the beginning of operations to allow for some unexpected 

delays or problems. Does the current schedule allow for this so far 

as you are aware? 

Mr. SHENKLER. Well, we are looking at a substantial completion 

some time, in my mind, around December 2006. That means a fully 

functional facility, ready for its intended use. That would incorporate not only construction completion, but also resolution of any 

punch list items that might still be on the—required to be corrected. 

Senator ALLARD. Is Gilbane doing all it can to ensure timely completion of the project within available funds? 

Mr. SHENKLER. We are monitoring the schedule on a daily basis. 

We are taking a proactive approach to looking at durations for all 

critical and near-critical activities. Starting tomorrow, we are going 

to have two additional senior superintendents coming in to take a 

look at activity durations to make sure that the staff who is on site 

right now is realistic in the way we are looking at durations based 

on quantity of work to be done per activity, crew sizes, and productivity per crew. 

Senator ALLARD. So you feel that right now you have the right 

people on board to complete the remaining tasks? 

Mr. SHENKLER. I think we do. 

ASSESSMENT OF GILBANE’S PERFORMANCE

Senator ALLARD. How would you assess Gilbane’s performance 

thus far and what is Gilbane doing to ensure that it has its A team 

on the job? 

Mr. SHENKLER. As with any job of a complexity and size of this 

magnitude, this is a very difficult job to accomplish. I think we 

have done a satisfactory project so far. We obviously need to do better. We have done—taken action to do that by taking, by bringing 

additional staff on board. We have got a full-time project control 

engineer who is rigorously looking at the schedule, as suggested by 

GAO. 

We are looking at costs. We are negotiating change orders. We 

are envisioning a timeframe that we think is realistic to complete 

the project. 

Senator ALLARD. You think you have the best people there to do 

that? 

Mr. SHENKLER. I think for the most part we have got superior 

people, the A team from Gilbane, on this job. 

Senator ALLARD. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Shenkler. I do 

not think there is any need for you to remain at the table now. 

Thank you. 

Mr. SHENKLER. Thank you. 
146 

CAPITOL POWER PLANT DIRECTOR

Senator ALLARD. I would like to move to the Capitol Power Plant 

(CPP), an unexpected problem that came up this last week. We 

have discussed the power plant in our hearing last month. The first 

thing I wanted to start off with is, what is the status now of hiring 

the CPP director? 

Mr. HANTMAN. Mr. Chairman, the job description is out on the 

street. It is being advertised right now. 

Senator ALLARD. Okay. What has been the initial response? 

Mr. HANTMAN. I will have to get back to you on that. I am not 

sure how many applications—— 

WEST REFRIGERATION PLANT COST TO COMPLETE

Senator ALLARD. Do you expect additional funds will be needed 

to complete the $100 million west refrigeration plant project, and 

if so when will funds be needed? 

Mr. HANTMAN. We are looking at a cost to complete right now, 

Mr. Chairman—I was talking to our project manager just yesterday 

about that—to make sure that we cover not only the cost to complete of the plant itself, but the issue of increasing utility costs, 

with gas prices going up and how that might be impacting our 

overall power plant budget itself. 

We do expect that there will be additional dollars necessary to 

do that and we are looking at the magnitude of that, and also looking internally to see what other sources of funds that we already 

have at the power plant to help defer that magnitude of dollars. 

Senator ALLARD. What is the current estimated completion date? 

The original schedule called for March 2006. 

Mr. HANTMAN. There are basically two dates, Mr. Chairman. The 

first date essentially is for manual operation on December 1 of this 

year for the new chillers, and our contractor informs us that that 

schedule is on board and they have no concern about that. 

In terms of the controls, there have been some difficulties in 

terms of the control systems and making sure that those occur. We 

met with our contractor last week to discuss those issues. They are 

looking for time extensions on their contract and we are trying to 

work out with them what that might mean. 

The bottom line in terms of chilled water capacity is that, with 

the existing capacity in the west refrigeration plant, the four machines we have there now, and the capacity in the existing east refrigeration plant—and as you are probably aware, Mr. Chairman, 

we lost a couple of units on that in the last several weeks, which 

is one of the reasons we wanted to do the expanded west refrigeration plant, because those units are outdated. In fact, we had a fire 

in one of the breaker panels over there, which is equipment that 

was meant to be decommissioned once the new west refrigeration 

plant was online. 

We believe that the capacity that we have in the existing units 

in the west refrigeration plant and the east refrigeration plant 

should be adequate for our needs coming on board for a potential 

February-March need from the visitor center itself. We are looking 

at other opportunities to look at new piping arrangements to make 

sure that we have the flexibility between the west refrigeration 
147 

plant and the east refrigeration plant as we turn over the new 

units to be able to flexibly use them as we need to and not have 

a down time on that. 

CAPITOL POWER PLANT FIRE

Senator ALLARD. On Columbus Day weekend, there was a fire at 

the power plant, fortunately it occurred on the weekend, when we 

did not have much demand, and it was during a time when we had 

relatively mild weather. Can you bring us up to date as to what 

was the cause of the fire? Were we slacking off on maintenance because of the new equipment that was coming on? 

Mr. HANTMAN. Mr. Chairman, this equipment has outlived its 

life already, which is again why we are appreciative that the Appropriations Committees have funded this new west refrigeration 

plant. This electric circuit breaker malfunctioned on October 8 and 

it started an electrical fire. The breaker serviced a chilled water 

pump in the east refrigeration plant which was not in operation at 

the time. 

We are investigating the cause of the breaker failure, but predominantly it is aging equipment and, quite frankly, I think the 

plant has done a good job in terms of putting bandaids and keeping 

them running as long as they have. 

There were no injuries. Damage was limited to equipment scheduled to be taken out of service as part of the west refrigeration 

plant expansion project, and it will not be replaced. 

Our staff responded quickly to isolate the power to the substation. D.C. Fire extinguished the fire with foam. During the incident, chilled water service air-conditioning to the complex was not 

disrupted since the west refrigeration plant was not impacted, because of the newer machines. But the steam service, the heat and 

humidity, was reduced temporarily as a result of the reduction in 

power, which had a slight impact on room temperatures. But by 

Saturday evening the service was returned to normal. 

MITIGATION PLAN

Senator ALLARD. You had mentioned getting the ducts completed 

in the new Capitol Visitor Center was a key milestone in getting 

things moving. I assume that is because you can sustain a proper 

working environment there for your internal job. 

If we have another incident like this at the power plant, during 

the cold winter months we have a shutdown, that could be one of 

our high risk factors, could it not? Do you think that is likely to 

happen? Do we have of a mitigation plan for that? 

Mr. HANTMAN. The mitigation plan again refers to the piping bypass that I talked about just a moment or so ago. The flexibility 

to be able to operate the existing east plant chillers and the west 

plant chillers as we bring on the new ones and hook them up is 

what this piping scene is all about. We expect that is a $500,000 

to $600,000 element that really relates back to the fact that we 

have lost existing equipment on line, and we want to make sure 

that we have the redundancy necessary. 

Senator ALLARD. Is there anything to be done at the power plant 

to make it less likely we would have these kind of fire incidents? 
148 

Mr. HANTMAN. Well, part of the solution, sir, is to get rid of the 

old equipment and bring in new, which is exactly what we are 

doing. The fire was in fact in the old equipment, which is slated 

for removal and replacement. It has outlived its life and certainly 

proper observation, testing and maintenance is critical and has 

been critical to getting us where we are at this point. 

UPCOMING MILESTONES

Senator ALLARD. Mr. Hixon, on the milestones, what are the 

major milestones we should expect you to meet the next month toward completion of the Capitol Visitor Center? 

Mr. HIXON. The milestones for next month should be the continuation of the utility tunnel items that have not been reported as 

completed yet, and then we will be talking about the upper level 

assembly rooms, the exhibit gallery, the east front sub-basement 

masonry, continuation of additional utility tunnel activities. So 

those are the things that we should be reporting on, and I have a 

sheet of paper with a list of those that we can convey with our 

statement. 

Senator ALLARD. We would appreciate you putting that in the 

record if you would, please. 

[The information follows:] 
149 

CAPITOL VISITOR CENTER CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES 

[Schedule Activities between October 18, and November 15, 2005] 

Item # Location Description June 2005 Start Date September 2005 Start Date Actual Start June 2005 Finish Date September 2005 Finish Date Actual Finish Notes 

4520 Orientation Lobby ........................................ Perimeter CMU walls ............................................................. 9/2/05 ....... 9/30/05 ..... 9/12/2005 1 9/16/05 ..... 10/13/05 ... ............ ............2016 Upper Level Assembly Room ....................... Topping slab .......................................................................... 9/1/05 ....... 9/15/05 ..... 9/15/05 1 ... 9/29/05 ..... 10/20/05 ... ............ ............80160 East Front Subbasement ............................ Interior CMU walls ................................................................. 8/12/05 ..... 9/30/05 ..... ................... 9/9/05 ....... 10/27/05 ... ............ ............SD5861 Exhibit Gallery ............................................. Wall stone Area 2 base ......................................................... 9/22/05 ..... 10/24/05 ... ................... 9/29/05 ..... 10/31/05 ... ............ 3 6081 Congressional Auditorium ........................... Wall Stone Area 1 .................................................................. 7/1/05 ....... 9/30/05 ..... 8/15/05 1 ... 7/22/05 ..... 11/3/05 ..... ............ 1 SD5951 Upper Level Assembly Room ....................... Wall stone area 1 layout ....................................................... 9/30/05 ..... 11/7/05 ..... ................... 10/4/05 ..... 11/9/05 ..... ............ ............SD5891 Exhibit Gallery ............................................. Wall stone Area 3 base ......................................................... 9/22/05 ..... 11/3/05 ..... ................... 9/29/05 ..... 11/10/05 ... ............ 3 4540 Orientation Lobby ........................................ Interior CMU walls ................................................................. 9/19/05 ..... 10/12/05 ... ................... 10/21/05 ... 11/15/05 ... ............ ............SD5831 Exhibit Gallery ............................................. Wall stone Area 1 .................................................................. 10/7/05 ..... 10/31/05 ... ................... 10/25/05 ... 11/16/05 ... ............ ............6082 Congressional Auditorium ........................... Wall Stone Area 2 .................................................................. 7/25/05 ..... 11/4/05 ..... ................... 8/5/05 ....... 11/17/05 ... ............ 1 84280 Utility Tunnel ............................................... Excavate/shore Station Sta 0.00–1.00 .................................. 8/24/05 ..... 8/12/05 ..... 8/12/05 1 ... 10/5/05 ..... 10/6/05 ..... ............ 2 84340 Utility Tunnel ............................................... Concrete Working Slab Sta. 0.00–1.00 ................................. 10/6/05 ..... 10/7/05 ..... ................... 10/10/05 ... 10/11/05 ... ............ 2 84350 Utility Tunnel ............................................... Waterproof Working Slab Sta. 000–1.00 ............................... 10/11/05 ... 10/12/05 ... ................... 10/13/05 ... 10/14/05 ... ............ 2 84360 Utility Tunnel ............................................... Install Mat Slab Sta. 0.00–1.00 ........................................... 10/14/05 ... 10/17/05 ... ................... 10/19/05 ... 10/20/05 ... ............ 2 84560 Utility Tunnel ............................................... Install Mat Slab Sta. 1.00–2.00 ........................................... 10/12/05 ... 10/17/05 ... ................... 10/19/05 ... 10/24/05 ... ............ 2 84570 Utility Tunnel ............................................... Install Walls Sta. 1.00–2.00 ................................................. 10/24/05 ... 10/25/05 ... ................... 11/11/05 ... 11/4/05 ..... ............ 2 

1 Notes activities identified as critical. 

Notes: 1. Wall stone manpower. 2. Utility tunnel work delayed by unforeseen site conditions and resultant design revisions. Dates based on current Early Start. 

3. Special bite for exhibit wall stone base. 
150 

Senator ALLARD. Mr. Ungar, on critical activities, what do you 

think is the most important action the Architect of the Capitol 

needs to take with respect to the Capitol Visitor Center project to 

ensure its timely completion? 

Mr. UNGAR. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I think the most critical action 

would be to have a realistic, credible schedule that is complete as 

soon as possible. 

Senator ALLARD. Do we have any comments from the panel that 

they would like to make for the record? 

Mr. HANTMAN. Just, Mr. Chairman, that I do welcome the opportunity to have these hearings and to bring these issues forward 

and try to resolve them in an appropriate way. I also welcome the 

opportunity to show you first-hand all of the issues that we have 

been talking about and the quality of the work. I truly still do believe, sir, that we are going to have a wonderful, historic project 

over here that will serve the Congress and the American people 

who come to visit their Congress as well. 

Senator ALLARD. Well, I appreciate the opportunity to have a 

tour. 

Mr. HANTMAN. Yes. Again, a lot of the discussion we have been 

having, Mr. Chairman, is about things you can see on the visitor 

level. I think being able to look at the utility tunnel, look at the 

mechanical and electrical spaces down below on the third level, 

perhaps the truck dock area, whatever your time will allow us to 

see, we would welcome the opportunity to show you. 

Senator ALLARD. Well, we will have our staffs work together and 

see if we can set up a timely tour hitting the main issues that we 

have been talking about here on the subcommittee. 

SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

Thank you very much for your time and I look forward to visiting 

with you 30 days from now. 

[Whereupon, at 11:21 a.m., Tuesday, October 18, the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of the Chair.] 
(151) 

PROGRESS OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE 

CAPITOL VISITOR CENTER 

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 2005 

U.S. SENATE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH, 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met at 11:01 a.m., in room SD–138, Dirksen 

Senate Office Building, Hon. Wayne Allard (chairman) presiding. 

Present: Senator Allard. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR WAYNE ALLARD

Senator ALLARD. I am going to call to order the subcommittee. 

We meet today for our sixth hearing this year on the progress of 

the Capitol Visitor Center (CVC). We welcome once again Architect 

of the Capitol Alan Hantman, the CVC Project Executive Bob 

Hixon, and GAO’s representatives Bernard Ungar and Terrell 

Dorn. 

Today we look forward to discussing the latest estimate of the 

cost to complete the CVC project, the Architect’s efforts to keep the 

project on schedule, as well as the status of critical activities such 

as stone installation and the utility tunnel construction. 

It appears that the Architect believes sufficient funds remain to 

complete the project, while the Government Accountability Office 

estimates the need for a minimum of $14 million in additional appropriations. Once again, we have a wide discrepancy between the 

projections of AOC and that of the GAO. In addition, we understand GAO’s estimate is very preliminary since the schedule is still 

in flux. GAO cannot with any degree of precision estimate the cost. 

As to progress in the past month, GAO reports that 8 of 16 activities to have been completed in the last month have actually 

been completed. Only three of these milestones were completed on 

time. About 10 days of work on the utility tunnel and the interior 

stone work were lost out of 21 work days in the last month. Despite 

AOC’s projection that it would be able to make up the lost time, 

the trend of losing time against the schedule continues. 

I would just note that I frequently will walk by the Capitol 

Street utility tunnel on the east side and I’ve seen much more activity in the last couple of days, which has been heartening. 

So now let me turn to you, Mr. Hantman, for your testimony, to 

be followed by GAO. 
152 

STATEMENT OF ALAN M. HANTMAN, FAIA, ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL 

ACCOMPANIED BY BOB HIXON, PROJECT DIRECTOR, CAPITOL VISITOR CENTER, ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL 

Mr. HANTMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning. 

Once again I welcome this opportunity to update you on the status 

of the Capitol Visitor Center project and to discuss the key issues 

that you mentioned, the schedule, the budget, and project progress. 

First, I would like to thank you for taking the time to scale the ladders with us a few weeks ago and visit the project, including the 

utility tunnel on East Capitol Street that you just referred to. As 

you know, this is a critical activity that has provided us with many 

challenges and physical obstacles over the past months. 

STONE DELIVERY STATUS

The most significant challenge, Mr. Chairman, since last month’s 

hearing, however, is the continued lack of adequate wall stone delivery. In October we received only 2 truckloads of stone, not the 

11 truckloads that were scheduled for delivery. This severely impacted our installation schedule and forced the contractor to move 

stonemasons to areas of the project that were not as high a priority 

in the work flow. This allowed the contractor to keep the 25 teams 

of masons working productively, but this is a very troubling situation that we have been pursuing with our contractors. 

On November 2, we met with representatives of Manhattan and 

the stone installer, Boatman and Magnani, and their attorneys to 

obtain a briefing on the status of stone delivery and what actions 

they proposed to take. We made it clear to them that late delivery 

of stone is significantly jeopardizing the timely completion and 

opening of the CVC and that we expected that necessary steps be 

taken to ensure that the contract completion date would be met. At 

the same time, we recognize that the injunction has inhibited their 

ability to resolve this issue on their own. 

Therefore, on November 5, attorneys for Boatman and Magnani 

filed a motion in Federal District Court for the Western District of 

Pennsylvania seeking relief from the existing injunction and an expedited hearing on the matter. In its motion, Boatman and 

Magnani asserts that stone is not being delivered to the project in 

sufficient quantities to meet the contract completion date nor in accordance with the schedule the parties had certified to the court 

earlier. Therefore, Boatman and Magnani requested permission 

from the court to supplement the work of either the current stone 

fabricator and/or the quarry by contracting with others to assist 

with or supplement that work. Also, before the court are other motions from both the quarry and the fabricator. 

While we are not a party to this litigation, our interests are critically affected by it, and we are being represented by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Pennsylvania, who has appeared on our behalf to ensure our interests are made known to the 

court. Yesterday, the U.S. attorney filed a statement of interest on 

our behalf as a friend of the court, reiterating the need for an expedited hearing and ruling on the matter, given the impact that stone 

delivery is having on the CVC project. 
153 

The judge has now scheduled a hearing for December 1, for presentation of all pending motions. The U.S. Attorney’s Office will be 

there to represent us and so will Mr. Hixon and my general counsel. While we take no position on any of these motions, we do believe the issues presented represent the need for the court to take 

immediate appropriate action to ensure that stone is delivered to 

the project in sufficient quantities to allow timely completion of the 

project. 

Mr. Chairman, until we know what relief, if any, will be granted 

to Boatman and Magnani by the court, we cannot predict what impacts to the schedule may result. In the meantime, our contractors 

are working around the problem areas and initiating other productive work. 

CONSTRUCTION PROJECT STATUS

In general, with regard to the overall project schedule, at last 

month’s hearing we committed to include the testing and balancing 

commissioning activities for the heating, ventilating, and air-conditioning system into the fully integrated schedule. We have completed that effort and we are in the process of developing the detailed schedule activities for life safety acceptance testing. The fire 

marshal will perform these activities during the second half of next 

year. 

At a meeting last week with the fire marshal, we reviewed the 

requirements for acceptance testing so we can develop the detailed 

schedule over the next few weeks. In accordance, Mr. Chairman, 

with our commitment at the last hearing, we should complete that 

effort in December. This will in turn help us determine with greater accuracy when specific areas of the visitor center will become 

available for occupancy by the staff and by the public. This information also will be necessary for an executive director to determine 

when to hire the appropriate operations personnel as areas are 

completed in the months ahead. 

COST TO COMPLETE

Another key issue relates to the cost-to-complete analysis completed and submitted last month by our independent cost consultant, McDonough Bolyard Peck. We said in October, as you mentioned, Mr. Chairman, that we believed that no additional funds 

would be required. We continue to believe that, based on this report, all currently known issues, and a completion date of December 2006, we can still work within existing appropriated funds for 

the construction of the project, although the funding is tight. 

Nevertheless, we concur with GAO that potential risks clearly do 

still exist and that additional funds may be necessary to complete 

the project should these risks turn into reality; if completion therefore occurs after December 2006, or if significant additional change 

orders are required. In light of the unforeseen conditions we have 

encountered thus far, in addition to the challenges we face with the 

utility tunnel, the stone fabrication and installation, and the finish 

work still remaining in the east front, we acknowledge that funds 

for additional contingency might be necessary as we move forward. 

We will be reviewing this issue with GAO in conjunction with their 
154 

analysis and with the development of the fiscal year 2007 budget 

request. 

PROJECT HIGHLIGHTS

Mr. Chairman, I would now like to briefly discuss a few project 

highlights. Stonemason teams continue to set stone on the columns 

in the Great Hall and throughout the congressional auditorium and 

we are completing stone installation in both orientation theaters. 

To offset the delay in the exhibit gallery that we discussed at the 

last hearing, as shown on this board, the contractor moved crews 

to the upper level lobby just outside the orientation theaters and 

they set base stone and wall stone in that area, as well as in the 

congressional auditorium. So while the stone was not available earlier for the exhibition gallery, masons completed base stone in the 

lobby area 3 months earlier than scheduled. 

It is critical to keep the mason teams working productively or 

risk losing them to another project. Therefore, to adjust to the inconsistencies in stone deliveries that I discussed earlier, we have 

deviated from our schedule at times and moved the masons to 

other areas. That in turn has impacted milestones we have talked 

about in previous hearings, but if we have to move the crews 

around to keep them productive it is important to do so. 

In the last weeks, as shown on this board, the base stone for the 

exhibition gallery has been received. Much of that has been installed, allowing masons to move forward with the wall stone installation and the conduits for the interactive computer stations. 

Mr. Chairman, inside the House and Senate expansion space the 

contractor continues to make good progress. Crews are busy installing the ductwork for the air handling systems, conduit and wiring 

for all of the mechanical and electrical plumbing systems. On the 

Senate side, masonry block work and ductwork has been completed 

in many areas and crews are now erecting the metal stud walls 

and installing drywall throughout the space. 

On the Senate plaza, with all the elevation issues now resolved, 

that work is progressing well. Crews have placed concrete slabs 

and resumed installation of curb stones and granite pavers. 

Work on the utility tunnel along East Capitol Street has continued, as you mentioned, with concrete placements occurring at the 

intersections of First and Second Streets. Below First Street, as 

you saw during your inspection, Mr. Chairman, an existing gas line 

was found to be 6 feet lower than expected based on available 

drawings and is in the path of the utility tunnel. We have installed 

a new temporary bridge and shifted traffic to the west side of First 

Street to clear the way for Washington Gas crews to perform the 

gas line revisions. 

Meanwhile, the contractor personnel continue to install the 

chilled water, the steam lines, the welding connections, and place 

concrete. 

Mr. Chairman, construction challenges continue to pop up and 

we continue to address and resolve them, making progress as we 

go. 
155 

STATUS OF OPERATIONS

With respect to exhibits and operations, the project continues to 

move forward on many fronts. Principal filming for the orientation 

film has been completed. A separate contractor involved in producing all of the interactive programs for the 24 computer stations 

in the exhibit gallery has been photographing in the Capitol. These 

images will be used to create a virtual tour through the building. 

Meanwhile, a model fabricator is busy creating the 10-foot touchable model of the Capitol Dome, while another modelmaker is beginning to construct six models showing the evolution of the Capitol campus over the past 212 years. 

In addition, we continue to make progress on our operations initiatives. We reported last month that the request for proposal for 

food service contract had been issued and the search for the executive director is underway. We are looking forward to the candidates 

being reviewed for that position in December and having a selection made in January. In the meantime, we are working with your 

staff to examine a handful of other positions that need to be filled 

in the near future based on the recommendation of our operations 

consultant, Zell Partners. 

In closing, Mr. Chairman, several weeks ago I had the opportunity to escort the national board of directors of the American Institute of Architects to the project site. In their newsletter published a few days later and distributed to 76,000 professional members across the country, AIA President Douglas Steidl said that, 

quote: ‘‘All great projects require the collaboration of many individuals to achieve success. The Congress and the congressional leadership provided an exceptional focused vision for the project. The architect, RTKL, creatively integrated the complex functions with a 

clear vision and contractors appear to be executing the design details with superb craftsmanship.’’ 

Mr. Steidl added that the project team, quote, ‘‘is well on its way 

to achieving the significant architectural distinction that is worthy 

of this historic and celebrated site,’’ and that ‘‘the excellence of the 

project is consistent with the significance of the place and will 

serve citizens of this country extremely well long into the future.’’ 

Mr. Chairman, this helps us maintain our perspective as we 

work through and resolve issues that continue to arise. I would like 

to include this full article as part of the official record, to talk 

about how recognized experts in the design and construction community perceive our project. 

Senator ALLARD. Without objection, we will include the full article. 

[The information follows:] 

[From AIArchitect, November 2005] 

ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL, RTKL ‘‘DOING IT RIGHT’’ AT THE U.S. CAPITOL VISITOR

CENTER

While convening in Washington, D.C, members of the AIA Executive Committee 

toured the construction site of the new U.S. Capitol Visitor Center on October 19 

with the best of all possible tour guides: Architect of the Capitol Alan Hantman, 

FAIA. Construction of the visitor center began in July 2002 for the purpose of making the Capitol ‘‘more accessible, comfortable, secure, and informative for all visitors.’’ Architecture firm RTKL Associates Inc. placed the facility underground below 
156 

the East Capitol grounds, so as not to detract from the venerable appearance of the 

Capitol and its historic Frederick Law Olmsted landscape. 

Encompassing 580,000 square feet on three levels, the new visitor center is nearly 

three-quarters the size of the Capitol itself and includes space for two orientation 

theaters, an auditorium, exhibits, gift shops, food service, security and other ancillary spaces, as well much needed space for the House and Senate. Working in the 

days following the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, RTKL designed the visitor center to enhance security while preserving an atmosphere of free and open access, using such processional elements as gently sloping ramps. Six skylights in the 

center’s roof deck welcome sunlight to flood interior spaces while offering visitors 

dramatic views of the Capitol dome. 

Exceptional, focused vision 

‘‘All great projects require the collaboration of many individuals to achieve success. The Congress and congressional leadership provided an exceptional, focused vision for the project; the architect (RTKL) creatively integrated the complex functions 

with a clear vision; and the contractors appear to be executing the design details 

with superb craftsmanship,’’ noted AIA President Douglas L Steidl, FAIA, in a letter 

of appreciation to Hantman. ‘‘As the Architect of the Capitol, you have obviously excelled in unifying the team effort, ensuring that the visionary ideals were adroitly 

integrated with functional demands. Further, your team is well on its way to achieving the significant architectural distinction that is worthy of this historic and celebrated site.’’ 

Construction, resolutely on track for a fall 2006 completion, is entering its final 

phase. Board members saw interior crews busily installing MEP systems, erecting 

interior walls, and hooking up fire and life-safety systems. Stone masons currently 

are installing some of the $35 million worth of finish stone, including in the Great 

Hall and the center’s two theaters. Outside, on the roof deck, historic preservation 

contractors are re-installing the original Olmsted-designed lanterns, fountains, and 

seat walls that had been temporarily stored during excavation and construction. 

Steidl, on behalf of the AIA’s 76,000 members, expressed gratitude to the Architect of the Capitol ‘‘for shepherding this most vital public project in such a manner 

that it is being exceptionally well constructed, despite the most difficult of technical, 

environmental, schedule, and iconic demands.’’ He further wrote to Hantman, ‘‘We 

believe you deserve the gratitude of every American for ‘doing it right.’ The excellence of this project is consistent with the significance of the ‘place’ and will serve 

the citizens of this country extremely well, long into the future.’’ 

Building bridges on the Hill 

In the same week, in the nearby Hart Senate Office Building, Duane A. Kell, 

FAIA, Ankeny Kell Architects, PA, St. Paul, and AIA Executive Vice President/CEO 

Norman L. Koonce, FAIA, paid a visit to Senator Norman Coleman (R.-Minn.). Kell, 

who first came to know the senator during Coleman’s term as mayor of St. Paul, 

brought regards from the Minnesota components of the AIA and thanked the senator for his help in protecting Community Development Block Grants. 

Kell and Koonce discussed public advocacy for public buildings with Sen. Coleman, and explained to him the Institute’s legislative initiatives that, if enacted, 

would offer appropriate and cost-effective assistance to those affected by the devastation of hurricanes Katrina and Rita. ‘‘Both Duane and I came away from our 

meeting convinced that Senator Coleman has the keen insights and experience to 

take a leadership role in the Senate as a spirited advocate for design excellence in 

the public sector,’’ Koonce said. Koonce and Kell both thanked AIA Minnesota Executive Director Beverly Hauschild-Baron, Hon. AIA, for her valuable assistance in arranging the visit. 

In a follow-up visit, the senator’s staff and members of the AIA’s Government Advocacy staff agreed to explore development of Senate legislation on federal tax credits for historic preservation that is like the English-Jefferson bill in the House. It 

would be introduced during the second session of the 109th Congress. 

Mr. HANTMAN. Thank you, sir. 

That concludes my opening remarks, Mr. Chairman, and I welcome the opportunity to answer any questions you may have. 

[The statement follows:] 
157 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ALAN M. HANTMAN, FAIA 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning. Once again, I welcome this opportunity to update you on the status of the Capitol Visitor Center project and to discuss the key issues related to schedule, budget, and project progress. 

First, I would like to thank you for taking the time to scale the ladders with us 

a few weeks ago and visit the project, including the utility tunnel on East Capitol 

Street, which is a critical activity that has provided us with many challenges and 

physical obstacles over the past weeks. 

The most significant issue since last month’s hearing is the continued lack of adequate wall stone delivery. In October we received only two truck loads of stone; not 

the 11 truck loads that were scheduled for delivery. We have met with the contractor to discuss this issue and the stone contractor’s attorney has filed paperwork 

with the Federal Court involved in the dispute with the stone supplier. We are hoping for a prompt hearing on this issue and relief from the injunction. 

PROJECT SCHEDULE

With regard to the project schedule, as we reported last month, our contractor, 

Manhattan, submitted a revised schedule that fully integrates the project’s nearly 

6,600 scheduled activities, including testing and balancing of the HVAC system. The 

only element not resolved in the schedule is the level of detail for the life-safety acceptance testing to be performed by the Fire Marshal during the second half of next 

year. At a meeting last week with the Fire Marshal, we reviewed the requirements 

for acceptance testing so we can develop the detailed schedule over the next few 

weeks. In accordance with our commitment at the last hearing, we should complete 

that effort in December. 

Our project master schedule still shows completion of the Visitor Center, including commissioning activities, in December 2006; with the House and Senate Expansion space on track for completion in March 2007. Our efforts with the Fire Marshal 

will produce, in late December, a schedule with all required construction activities 

which will, in turn, help us determine with greater accuracy when specific areas of 

the Visitor Center will become available for occupancy. This information will be necessary for an Executive Director to determine when to hire the appropriate operations personnel as areas are completed in the months ahead. 

COST TO COMPLETE

Another key issue relates to the Cost-to-Complete analysis completed and submitted last month by our independent cost consultant, McDonough Bolyard Peck. 

We said in October that we believed that no additional funds would be required. 

We continue to believe that, based on all currently known issues and a completion 

date of December 2006, we can still work within existing appropriated funds for the 

construction of the project, although the funding is tight. I want to note that there 

is an increase of $5 million in the Cost-to-Complete estimate compared to last year. 

The reasons for that increase include extension of the AOC and A/E construction 

management staff for three months, additional time for temporary power and construction materials testing, and, most significantly, new and projected change orders. However, funding to cover this increase in the estimated Cost-to-Complete is 

available within currently appropriated funding. 

Nevertheless, we concur with GAO that potential risks do still exist and that additional funds may be necessary to complete the project should these risks turn into 

reality, if completion occurs after December 2006, or if significant additional change 

orders are required. In light of the design changes and unforeseen conditions we 

have encountered thus far, in addition to the challenges we face with the utility tunnel, stone fabrication and installation, and the finish work still remaining in the 

East Front, we acknowledge that funds for additional contingency might be necessary as we move forward. 

PROJECT HIGHLIGHTS

Mr. Chairman, for the record, I would like to discuss a few project highlights. 

Stone mason teams continue to set stone on the columns in the Great Hall and 

throughout the Congressional Auditorium, and we are completing stone installation 

in both orientation theaters. To offset the delay in the Exhibit Gallery stone work, 

the contractor moved crews to the upper level lobby just outside the orientation theaters and they set base stone and wall stone in that area, as well as in the Congressional Auditorium. So, while stone was not available for the Exhibition Gallery, masons completed base stone in the lobby area three months earlier than scheduled. 

It is critical to keep the mason teams working productively or risk losing them to 
158 

another project. Therefore, to adjust to the inconsistencies in stone deliveries, we 

have deviated from our schedule at times and moved the masons to other areas. 

That, in turn, has impacted milestones we’ve talked about in previous hearings, but 

if we have to move crews around to keep them working, it is important to do so. 

Inside the House and Senate Expansion Space, the contractor continues to make 

good progress. Crews are busy installing the ductwork for the air handling systems 

and conduit and wiring for all of the mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems. 

On the Senate side, masonry blockwork and ductwork has been completed in many 

areas and crews are now erecting the metal stud walls and installing drywall 

throughout the space. On the Senate Plaza, with all of the elevation issues now resolved, that work is progressing well. Crews have placed concrete slabs and resumed 

installation of curb stones and granite pavers. 

Work on the utility tunnel along East Capitol Street has continued with concrete 

placements occurring at the intersections at First and Second Streets. Below First 

Street, as you saw during your inspection, Mr. Chairman, an existing gas line was 

found to be six feet lower than expected based on available drawings and is in the 

path of the utility tunnel. We have installed a new temporary bridge and shifted 

traffic to the west side of First Street to clear the way for Washington Gas crews 

to perform the gas line revision. Meanwhile, contractor personnel continue to install 

the chilled water and steam pipes, weld connections, and place concrete in other 

areas of the tunnel. 

Also regarding utilities, I am pleased to report that the chillers in the West Refrigeration Plant Expansion are scheduled to be operational on December 1, 2005, 

and the contractor has confirmed that they will be ready on that date. This does 

not include the installation of the entire digital control system to automatically operate the chillers, but the chillers will be operated in a manual mode and will be 

fully capable of producing chilled water well in advance of the completion of the 

CVC utility tunnel. While it is planned that the East Refrigeration Plant and the 

existing West Refrigeration Plant would provide all required chilled water this winter, the chillers added as part of the West Refrigeration Plant Expansion project 

could be used if necessary. With the completion of the utility tunnel serving the 

CVC, we are confident that adequate capacity exists to service the CVC during the 

upcoming winter period and beyond. 

EXHIBITS AND OPERATIONS

Mr. Chairman, with respect to exhibits and operations, the project continues to 

move forward on many fronts. Principal filming for the orientation film has been 

completed, and a separate contractor involved in producing all of the interactive programs for the 24 computer stations in the Exhibit Gallery has begun photographing 

the Capitol. These images will be used to create a virtual tour through the building. 

Meanwhile, a model fabricator is busy creating the 10-foot touchable model of the 

Capitol Dome while another model maker is beginning to construct six models showing the evolution of the Capitol campus over the past 212 years. In addition, we continue to make progress on our operations initiatives. We reported last month that 

the Request for Proposal for the food service contract was issued, and the search 

for the Executive Director is underway. We are looking forward to the candidates 

being reviewed for that position in December and having a selection made in January. In the meantime, we are working with your staff to examine a handful of other 

positions that need to be filled in the near future based on the recommendation of 

our operations consultant, Zell Partners. 

Mr. Chairman, several weeks ago I had the opportunity to escort the National 

Board of Directors of the American Institute of Architects to the project site. In their 

newsletter published a few days later and distributed to 76,000 members across the 

country, AIA president Douglas Steidl said that, ‘‘All great projects require the collaboration of many individuals to achieve success. The Congress and the congressional leadership provided an exceptional, focused vision for the project; the architect (RTKL) creatively integrated the complex functions with a clear vision; and the 

contractors appear to be executing the design details with superb craftsmanship.’’ 

Mr. Steidl added that the project team ‘‘is well on its way to achieving the significant architectural distinction that is worthy of this historic and celebrated site’’ and 

that the ‘‘excellence of this project is consistent with the significance of the ‘place’ 

and will serve citizens of this country extremely well, long into the future.’’ Mr. 

Chairman, I would like to include the full article as part of the official record of 

today’s hearing as an indication of how segments of the design and construction 

community perceive the Visitor Center project. 

That concludes my opening remarks, Mr. Chairman, and I welcome the opportunity to answer any questions you may have. 
159 

Senator ALLARD. Very good. GAO, go ahead if you would, please, 

with your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF BERNARD L. UNGAR, DIRECTOR, PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE, GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE 

ACCOMPANIED BY TERRELL DORN, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, PHYSICAL 

INFRASTRUCTURE, GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE 

Mr. UNGAR. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Dorn will provide our summary 

and we will both be available for questions. 

Mr. DORN. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank 

you for the opportunity for Mr. Ungar and I to come and discuss 

our continuing assistance to the subcommittee in its oversight of 

the Capitol Visitor Center construction. Our summary this morning 

is going to center on two areas, schedule and cost. However, as you 

mentioned before, we still cannot come to an exact number on the 

cost or the completion date until the schedule is finalized by AOC 

next month. 

While we may disagree with AOC’s monthly report that the 

project is proceeding according to the master schedule, we do agree 

that work is continuing in many areas and that it is exciting to see 

the spaces take shape as walls and mechanical equipment are installed, particularly in the House and Senate expansion spaces. 

CONSTRUCTION ISSUES

Unfortunately, as we reported last month, work is still not proceeding at the pace necessary to meet the contract completion date 

of September 2006, 10 months from now, which in turn affects the 

opening. Three examples of the slower than expected pace are the 

continuing trend of missing milestones, two critical project drivers 

losing 2 weeks in the last month, and the amount of time that 

needs to be made up between now and September 2006. 

First, as you mentioned, only 8 out of the 16 milestones were 

completed and out of those 8 only 3 were on time. This is after 

moving the goalpost forward from the April baseline schedule to 

the September schedule. 

Second, the two critical drivers are interior stone and the utility 

tunnel, as the Architect has already mentioned. Like last month, 

both of these critical paths lost about 2 weeks in the last month. 

Third, a couple months back we reported that as of the end of 

July the project was about 60 calendar days behind and the team 

would have to work the equivalent of 8 days a week to make up 

the lost time. Three months later, the project is now over 80 calendar days behind and the team would have to work the equivalent 

of 9 days a week for the next 10 months straight to complete the 

contract on time. 

As I mentioned a moment ago, the two critical drivers currently 

are utility tunnel and interior stone. The CVC team is working to 

pick up the pace in the utility tunnel and another concrete sub is 

on site and helping. Most of the excavation is now complete and 

along with that most of the opportunities for differing site conditions are gone. However, we still have the excavation for the movement of a 24-inch gas line to do, and that is going to extend out 

15 feet or so on both sides of the utility tunnel, which means you 

are going to cut through quite a bit of East Capitol Street, where 
160 

you are going to have more opportunities to run into more utilities. 

So there is a high risk there, even though it is a limited amount 

of excavation. 

The other risk on the utility tunnel is, as the Architect mentioned, the gas pipe is actually going to be replaced by Washington 

Gas, not the CVC, so we are at the gas company’s mercy as far as 

when that pipe actually gets replaced. 

On interior stone, while Manhattan has been successful in its effort to get more masons on the job, they have been much less successful in getting stone for the masons to install. The project has 

repeatedly only received half the stone deliveries that Manhattan 

says it needs to stay on schedule, and since the last hearing the 

situation has worsened to only 2 truckloads out of 11 required. 

Manhattan has kept the masons busy by doing work out of sequence, but doing work in that way is not helping the critical path. 

CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE

AOC has made significant effort over the past month to resolve 

the scheduling issues surrounding the heating and air-conditioning 

equipment, testing and balancing, and the fire protection equipment. However, they have not yet reached a conclusion with the 

fire marshal on the testing of the fire protection equipment and 

until this is done there is a risk of a slip to the project schedule 

of an additional 2 to 4 months. 

In addition on the project schedule, Mr. Chairman, we have 

talked before about the need to have a fully integrated schedule, 

including operations, and I just want to point out that the operations piece, while it is added to the end of the schedule, is still 

not linked in logically and that could create problems as the construction schedule slips. So we need to again reinforce the need to 

fully integrate the operations schedule and the construction schedule. 

A few months ago we recommended that AOC and Gilbane reexamine the schedule, particularly the project durations. Gilbane has 

completed that work and has made a number of recommendations 

to correct schedule inaccuracies and unrealistic durations in some 

areas, particularly the stone. We recommend that AOC implement 

the Gilbane recommendations, which are consistent with our previous recommendations on improving schedule management, and 

that AOC also re-assess its proposed December 2006 date for opening the CVC to the public. 

Gilbane’s recommendations reinforce GAO’s view that the CVC is 

much more likely to be completed in the spring to summer of 2007. 

COST TO COMPLETE

Mr. Chairman, in November 2004 we estimated that, given the 

risks and uncertainties that the project was likely to face, that the 

cost was likely to be between $515 and $559 million. A year later, 

our preliminary work indicates that the CVC project is likely, at 

a minimum, to cost $542.9 million. This number does not provide 

any more funds for the remaining risks and uncertainties that may 

materialize or cover the costs of certain delays that may occur. It 

also could change again if the schedule changes next month with 

AOC. 
161 

1See GAO, Capitol Visitor Center: Status of Schedule, Fire Protection, Cost, and Related 

Issues, GAO–06–180T (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 18, 2005). 

Our estimate of $542.9 million is significantly more than the 

McDonough Bolyard Peck cost-to-complete estimate that we received last month through the AOC, largely because McDonough 

Bolyard Peck’s estimate does not include a number of project components or in our view include sufficient contingency to complete 

the project. Our estimate of $542.9 exceeds the funds specifically 

provided to date for construction by a total of $14.5 million. 

WORKER SAFETY STATISTICS

Last, Mr. Chairman, I have some good news to report about 

worker safety. According to our analysis of CVC data, worker safety rates have substantially improved this year. The injury and illness rate for the first 10 months of 2005 declined 52 percent from 

the 2004 rate, putting the site 3 percent below the national average. The lost time rate declined 62 percent during the same period, 

but it is still 29 percent higher than the average rate for comparable construction sites, and the AOC and Gilbane and Manhattan should be congratulated for their effort to improve the safety 

records. 

OVERALL STATUS

Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, while significant effort has been 

made in schedule management, much remains to be done. Work is 

continuing to slip. Increasingly, stone deliveries are critical and 

Manhattan needs to meet its schedule on delivering stone. We recommend that AOC implement the Gilbane recommendations on the 

schedule and reassess the project’s opening date. In addition, we 

believe that at a minimum an additional $14.5 million will be needed to complete the project. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity and Mr. Ungar 

and I are prepared to answer any questions. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF BERNARD L. UNGAR

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: We are pleased to be here 

today to assist the Subcommittee in monitoring progress on the Capitol Visitor Center (CVC) project. Our remarks will focus on (1) the status of the project schedule 

since the Subcommittee’s October 18, 2005, hearing 1 on the project, (2) the project’s 

costs and funding, and (3) worker safety issues. We will discuss the progress made 

and problems encountered in completing scheduled construction work and in continuing to develop the project schedule, as we indicated during the Subcommittee’s 

October 18 hearing; however, we will not be able to estimate specific completion 

dates until the project schedule is stable and AOC and its construction management 

contractor—Gilbane Building Company—have completed their assessments of the 

schedule and we have had an opportunity to evaluate them. Also, we will update 

the information we previously provided on the project’s costs and funding, using 

readily available data, but we will wait until the project schedule is stable and has 

been fully reviewed before we comprehensively update our November 2004 estimate 

of the cost to complete the project and update the provision in our estimate for risks 

and uncertainties facing the project. 

Our remarks today are based on our review of schedules, financial reports, and 

worker safety information for the CVC project and related records and reports developed or maintained by AOC and its construction management contractor; our review 

of AOC’s consultant’s—McDonough Bolyard Peck (MBP)November 1, 2005, report 

updating its October 2004 estimate of the cost to complete the project; our observa-
162 

2 AOC set September 15, 2006, as the contractual date for completing the base project’s construction and for opening the CVC facility to the public. The House and Senate expansion spaces 

were scheduled to be completed after that date. AOC set the September contract completion date 

in November 2004, when it reached agreement with the contractor on a new date for starting 

sequence 2 that reflected the delays experienced on sequence 1. On September 6, 2005, AOC 

informed Capitol Preservation Commission representatives that it still expected the base 

project’s construction to be substantially complete on September 15, 2006, but was postponing 

the date for opening the facility to the public to December 15, 2006, so that it could complete 

system tests, minor punch-list work, and preparations for operations. 

tions on the progress of work at the CVC construction site; and our discussions with 

CVC project staff (including AOC and its major CVC contractors), AOC’s Chief Fire 

Marshal, U.S. Capitol Police representatives, and officials responsible for managing 

the Capitol Power Plant (CPP). We did not perform an audit; rather, we performed 

our work to assist Congress in conducting its oversight activities. 

In summary, construction work in several areas has moved forward since the Subcommittee’s October 18 CVC hearing, but additional delays have occurred, and 

AOC’s construction management contractor has identified several concerns with the 

schedule that raise questions about its proposed mid-December 2006 opening of the 

base CVC project to the public.2

—Construction work has continued on all interior CVC levels, various sections of 

the House and Senate expansion spaces, the plaza, and the House connector 

and utility tunnels. Overall, however, the work, especially stonework, has taken 

longer than scheduled. For example, the installation of interior wall stone fell 

behind about 2 weeks because of delays in receiving needed stone. Work on the 

utility tunnel was delayed by a similar amount of time for a variety of reasons. 

—Efforts by the sequence 2 contractor to resequence activities involved in testing, 

balancing, and commissioning the heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning 

(HVAC) system had the net effect of moving the base project’s completion date 

forward 3 days. AOC’s construction management contractor has accepted this 

resequencing. However, other scheduling issues could delay completion. For example, AOC’s Fire Marshal Division has raised several concerns about the 

schedule for testing and inspecting the CVC’s fire protection system, and the 

construction management contractor has identified a number of critical activities whose completion dates slipped from the September to the October schedule. Delays in completing these critical activities affect the progress of the 

project because other work cannot continue until they are completed. Critical 

stonework activities pose particular concerns, given the problems with labor and 

supplies that the project has experienced. For example, in October, the sequence 

2 contractor received less than 20 percent of the stone expected. 

—AOC’s construction management contractor’s evaluation of the duration of selected activities, completed last week, points to a later completion date than is 

currently scheduled unless additional actions are taken. This evaluation identified unrealistic durations for the selected activities (especially stonework), concerns about the schedule’s logic, and inaccuracies in reflecting the impact of 

delays and sequence 2 contract changes to date. The construction management 

contractor made a number of recommendations based on its findings. The contractor’s evaluation has reinforced our view that the base project would be difficult to complete in 2006 and is more likely to be completed in early to mid2007 unless AOC and its contractors take extraordinary action or change the 

project’s scope, which could increase the government’s costs. Our belief is based 

on the project’s history of delays; the views of project personnel that several activities (such as the installation of interior wall stone) are likely to take longer 

than scheduled; the large number of critical activities in the current project 

schedule; and the risks and uncertainties that continue to face the project. 

AOC and its construction management contractor expect to resolve outstanding 

scheduling concerns and issues by the end of this year. When AOC and its construction management contractor have prepared what they consider to be a reasonably 

stable project schedule, we will reevaluate the schedule and inform the Subcommittee of our results. In the interim, to help ensure that Congress has better 

information for making CVC-related decisions, we are recommending that AOC (1) 

implement the recommendations for obtaining a more reliable project schedule contained in its construction management contractor’s November 2005 report, which 

are consistent with our previous recommendations on schedule management, and (2) 

reassess its proposed December 2006 date for opening the CVC to the public when 

it has a more reliable construction schedule. 

Our preliminary work indicates that the entire CVC project is likely, at a min- imum, to cost $542.9 million. This preliminary estimate falls about midway between 

our September 15, 2005, interim estimate of $525.6 million, which did not provide 
163 

3Public Law 108–83, 117 Stat. 1007, 1026 (Sept. 30, 2003). 

for risks and uncertainties, and our November 2004 estimate of about $559 million, 

which did provide for risks and uncertainties. Specifically, this current $542.9 preliminary estimate is about $17.3 million more than the September 15 interim estimate and about $16.1 million less than the November 2004 estimate. The current 

$542.9 million preliminary estimate does not provide for risks and uncertainties or 

for additional payments to contractors to cover the costs of certain delays and other 

contingencies. Even without providing for risks and uncertainties, though, we have 

increased our cost estimate since September 15 because additional and more expensive changes to the project have been identified; we have increased our allowance 

for contingencies; and we have added funding for AOC and contractor staff that we 

believe are likely to be working on the project through the spring of 2007. Our preliminary estimate substantially exceeds MBP’s November 2005 updated estimate of 

$481.9 million, largely because MBP’s estimate does not cover a number of project 

components and does not, in our view, provide adequately for contingencies. In total, 

the funds specifically provided for project construction to date—about $528.4 million—are $14.5 million less than our preliminary $542.9 million cost estimate. In 

addition, another $7.7 million has been provided to cover either CVC construction 

or operations, although at this time AOC does not plan to use any of these funds 

for construction. Congress has limited the amount of federal funds that can be used 

for the construction of the tunnel connecting the CVC with the Library of Congress 

to $10 million.3 As of October 31, 2005, AOC estimated that the tunnel would cost 

about $8.8 million to construct; however, AOC had not yet awarded the contract for 

certain modifications to the tunnel project. Nevertheless, AOC believes that it will 

be able to keep the tunnel’s construction cost below the congressional limitation, and 

both we and AOC plan to monitor the tunnel’s construction cost closely. 

According to our analysis of CVC data, worker safety rates have improved substantially this year, although the lost-time rate remains above industry norms. The 

injury and illness rate for the first 10 months of 2005 declined 52 percent from the 

rate for 2004, putting the CVC site’s rate 3 percent below the average for comparable construction sites. The lost-time rate decreased 62 percent during the same 

period, but the CVC site’s rate is still 29 percent higher than the average rate for 

comparable construction sites. AOC and its contractors have taken a number of actions during 2005 to improve safety performance on the project, such as conducting 

training to elevate safety awareness and placing safety posters around the worksite. 

In addition, senior managers are meeting periodically to develop strategies to improve safety. Poor housekeeping, however, has been an ongoing issue at the site, 

and the sequence 2 contractor has recently taken actions to address this issue. 

WORK AND REVISIONS TO THE PROJECT SCHEDULE CONTINUE, BUT DELAYS HAMPER

PROGRESS

Work in several areas has moved forward since the Subcommittee’s October 18 

CVC hearing, but additional delays have occurred, and AOC’s construction management contractor has identified several concerns about the project schedule. AOC has 

been addressing previously identified schedule-related problems. 

AOC Continues to Project a Mid-December 2006 Opening for the Base CVC Project 

According to the October 2005 schedule prepared by AOC’s sequence 2 construction management contractor, the base CVC project can open to the public in December 2006, and the House and Senate expansion spaces will be finished by the end 

of February 2007. The contractor’s October schedule indicates that, with some exceptions, construction work on the base CVC project will be essentially complete by 

September 15, 2006, and the remaining work will be completed by December 8, 

2006. This remaining work includes testing, balancing, and commissioning the 

HVAC system; testing and inspecting the fire protection system; completing punchlist items; and preparing for operations. For the East Front, the October schedule 

shows construction work, such as the roof restoration, finish work, and elevator/escalator installation, completed after September 15, 2006. The October schedule also 

shows other construction work, such as the installation of ceiling panels in the orientation lobby and painting in the atria, extending after September 15, 2006. AOC 

expects all this construction work to be done and the base CVC project to be ready 

for operations between September 15, 2006, and mid-December 2006, enabling the 

facility to open to the public in mid-December. Additionally, under the October 

project schedule, the House and Senate expansion spaces will be completed in December 2006, and the testing, balancing, and commissioning of the HVAC system 

and the testing of the fire protection system will be finished by February 26, 2007. 
164 

According to AOC’s sequence 2 and construction management contractors, it is not 

yet clear whether the expansion space construction work will have progressed far 

enough to omit the temporary fire safety measures once considered necessary to 

open the CVC to the public. They said they are still analyzing the work associated 

with the areas where the base project and the expansion spaces come together to 

determine whether and how the need for temporary fire safety measures can be 

minimized or eliminated. 

Construction Work Continued, but Problems with Stonework and Other Issues 

Caused Delays 

Since the Subcommittee’s October 18 CVC hearing, construction work has continued on the CVC, the East Front, the plaza, the House and Senate expansion spaces, 

and the House connector and utility tunnels. For example, the installation of wall 

stone has continued in the auditorium, the orientation theaters, and the upper west 

lobby. Mechanical, electrical, and plumbing work has also been proceeding in the 

CVC. 

Overall, however, construction work, especially stonework, has taken longer than 

scheduled. Between the Subcommittee’s October 18 hearing and November 10, the 

sequence 2 contractor completed 8 of the 16 activities that we and AOC have been 

tracking for the Subcommittee, but only 3 of these activities were completed by the 

target dates shown in the contractor’s September 2005 schedule. (See app. I.) Delays 

have also occurred in interior stonework and in work on the East Front, the utility 

tunnel, and the penthouse’s mechanical systems. For example, according to AOC’s 

construction management contractor, similar to what happened in September, the 

sequence 2 contractor lost about 10 out of 21 possible workdays, both on critical interior stonework and on the utility tunnel. According to the construction management contractor, the stonework was delayed by the slow and late delivery of stone, 

a lack of critical pieces of stone, the need to address problems arising from sequence 

1 work, and a shortage of stone masons. During October, the installation of wall 

stone in the great hall and exhibit gallery was especially impeded because the stone 

supplier failed to meet scheduled delivery dates and the sequence 2 contractor received less than 20 percent of the stone the supplier had agreed to provide. Moreover, according to the sequence 2 contractor, during several preceding months, deliveries of stone were only about half as large as expected. Additionally, the contractor 

said, the delivered stone was not in the appropriate sequence and did not cover complete areas. To help mitigate these problems, during October, the sequence 2 contractor transferred stone masons from areas such as the exhibit gallery, for which 

no wall stone was available, to the auditorium, for which wall stone was available. 

AOC’s construction management contractor cited other delays in October, especially in the utility tunnel and in the exhibit gallery. For instance, work on First 

Street for the utility tunnel was delayed by unforeseen site conditions, rain, and the 

need to do unanticipated work. However, the construction management contractor 

said that steps have been taken to mitigate the impact of the delays, including the 

sequence 2 contractor’s hiring of another subcontractor and the installation of piping 

in the tunnel. In the view of the construction management contractor and the sequence 2 contractor, these steps will enable the CVC’s air-handling units to start 

up in February 2006 rather than in March 2006, as indicated in the October schedule. In the exhibit gallery, besides the delay in wall stone installation, the construction management contractor identified several problems, including delays in drawings for marble and finishes and concerns about the acceptability of the gallery’s fire 

suppression system that could further delay work in the exhibit gallery. 

Schedule Revisions Saved Some Time, but Many Activities Are Highly Vulnerable to 

Delay 

The sequence 2 contractor resequenced activities involved in testing, balancing, 

and commissioning the HVAC system and made other schedule changes that had 

the net effect of moving the base project’s completion date forward 3 days. While 

the resequencing will result in a loss of 10 workdays for the HVAC activities, according to the contractor’s revised schedule, the other changes have advanced the 

base project’s scheduled completion date to December 8, 2006, rather than December 

11, 2006, as indicated in the September schedule. AOC’s construction management 

contractor reports that it, the sequence 2 contractor, and AOC’s commissioning contractor have generally agreed on the revised schedule for testing, balancing, and 

commissioning the HVAC system. However, AOC’s Fire Marshal Division has not 

yet agreed on the schedule for those activities that relate to the CVC’s fire protection system, such as testing and inspecting the smoke control system, the fire alarm 

system, and stair pressurization. On October 31, the division provided its comments 

on the revised schedule for the fire protection system. The division’s Deputy Fire 
165 

4The construction management contractor identified the water lines as an issue in September 

but did not list them as critical until October. 5This situation can occur when workers from different trades, such as stone masons, electricians, plumbers, or plasterers, have to work in the same area at the same time to meet a 

schedule, sometimes making it difficult to ensure sufficient space and resources for concurrent 

work. 

Marshal expressed several significant concerns about the schedule. AOC and its construction management contractor expect to complete their reviews of this part of the 

schedule and resolve the Fire Marshal Division’s concerns by December 31, 2005. 

The construction management contractor has identified 14 critical activity paths 

in the October schedule that will extend the base project’s completion date beyond 

AOC’s September 15, 2006, target date if expected lost time cannot be recovered or 

further delays cannot be prevented. Eleven of the 14 critical activity paths in the 

October schedule were also identified in the September schedule. For 4 of these 11 

paths, such as the auditorium wall stone installation and the orientation theater 

millwork, the completion dates showed improvement compared with the September 

schedule, but for the other 7 paths, such as the utility tunnel and the exhibit gallery 

stonework, the completion dates slipped. The 3 paths newly identified in October are 

elevator installation, exhibit gallery steel framing, and 10- and 12-inch water line 

installation,4 each of which could delay the project if expected lost time cannot be 

recovered. In addition, our analysis of productivity data for interior wall stone installation, coupled with the sequence 2 contractor’s analysis of stone deliveries, indicates that AOC is not likely to meet its September 15, 2006, target date for completing the base project’s construction without significant increases in the pace of 

wall stone deliveries and installation. That is, without more stone masons and/or 

more work hours, more stone delivered more quickly, and faster stone installation, 

AOC is unlikely to meet its target schedule. The sequence 2 contractor believes that 

stone masons will be able to install more wall stone per day in some areas, such 

as the exhibit gallery, because the work is not as difficult as in the great hall or 

orientation theaters. However, the pace of this installation remains uncertain, in 

our view. Furthermore, given the project’s experiences to date with the number of 

stone masons, the quantity of stone deliveries, and the pace of installation, AOC’s 

construction management contractor notes that the completion of wall stone installation could extend up to several months beyond the July 2006 date shown in the 

project schedule without more work hours, higher productivity, and sufficient stone. 

The pace of wall stone installation is especially important because it affects the timing of other critical work necessary for the project’s completion, such as the ceiling’s 

installation and the HVAC system’s testing, balancing, and commissioning. The 

stone supply problem is the subject of litigation between the sequence 2 contractor 

and its subcontractors, and the sequence 2 contractor has been working to resolve 

the problem. However, at this time, it is not clear how or when this issue will be 

resolved. 

Construction Management Contractor’s Evaluation and Our Analysis Point to a 

Later Completion Date 

Most of the activities we have been discussing, such as the wall stone installation, 

fire safety inspections, and House connector tunnel construction, are among the activities that we previously identified as likely having optimistic durations, suggesting that those activities could take longer to complete than shown in the project 

schedule. These activities served as the basis for our September 15 recommendation 

that AOC rigorously evaluate the durations for the activities shown in the project 

schedule. Last week, AOC’s construction management contractor finished evaluating 

these durations and the logic for what it considered the most critical activities, such 

as wall stone installation, and discussed the impact of delays and sequence 2 contract changes on the project schedule. In its November 9 report to AOC, the construction management contractor said that (1) it was generally difficult to identify 

any activities that were completed within the planned duration; (2) none of the activities underway, primarily stonework, can be projected to be completed within the 

planned duration unless additional resources are applied; (3) the durations for a 

number of activities exceed 40 days compared with the contractual limit of 20 days; 

and (4) the sequence 2 contractor’s resequencing of work to mitigate the impact of 

delays will result in a ‘‘stacking of trades,’’ 5 which will require more manpower. 

Moreover, although the sequence 2 contractor has said that the project schedule reflects the impact of contract modifications executed to date and delays, the construction management contractor noted that the schedule does not accurately reflect the 

impact of contract changes and of delays due to the schedule’s logic and raised con-
166 

6On November 14, 2005, AOC provided us with MBP’s draft report on MBP’s assessment of 

the schedule durations for 19 activities. We did not, however, have sufficient time to evaluate 

the report for discussion in this statement. 

cern about whether the schedule fully reflected the impact of changes and delays 

given their magnitude. 

The construction management contractor made several recommendations to AOC 

based on its findings. For example, the construction management contractor recommended the development of a revised schedule that reflects (1) enhanced logic 

and sequencing of work, (2) activity durations more in line with the contract’s 20- 

day maximum requirement, and (3) the impact of all delays and contract changes 

encountered to date and the use of available resources. The construction management contractor also recommended the development of a recovery schedule for each 

recognized delay, an analysis of the impact of the recovery activities on required resources, and an examination of the amount of time required to prepare for operations between completing construction and opening to the public. The construction 

management contractor’s findings and recommendations concerning the project 

schedule are generally consistent with ours.6

Although the sequence 2 contractor has taken, plans to take, and is considering 

various actions to recover lost time and prevent or mitigate further delays, we continue to believe that the contractor will have difficulty completing construction before early to mid-2007. Among our reasons for concern are the uncertainty associated with the fire protection system schedule, including the concerns expressed by 

AOC’s Fire Marshal Division and our earlier work that raised questions about the 

amount of time being provided for system testing and inspections; the schedule slippages to date; the optimistic durations for a number of activities based on the views 

of CVC team members and the results of the construction management contractor’s 

recently completed review; the large number of activity paths that are critical; and 

the risks and uncertainties that continue to face the project. In addition, the continued schedule slippages indicate that more and more work will have to be done in 

a diminishing amount of time, and we are concerned—as is the construction management contractor—that the project schedule may not reflect the impact of changes 

to sequence 2 work resulting from contract modifications. Many changes, some substantial, have been made to the sequence 2 contract since it was initially awarded 

in April 2003. Yet, according to the construction management contractor, none of the 

modifications that have added work to the sequence 2 contract or changed the facility’s design have been reflected in the project schedule. Moreover, as AOC’s construction management contractor has noted, several problems have developed with activities associated with the exhibit gallery, and delays in completing CVC ceiling work 

necessary for the HVAC and fire protection systems could be problematic, although 

the CVC team is considering ways to mitigate these risks. We also note that the 

Chief Fire Marshal has not yet approved the construction drawings for the fire protection system or the schedule for the system’s commissioning and testing. 

AOC Has Been Addressing Previously Identified Schedule-Related Issues 

AOC and its construction management contractor have been working to implement recommendations we have made to improve AOC’s schedule management and 

to address other schedule-related issues we have identified. 

—We have recommended for some time that AOC improve its schedule management and analyze and document delays and the reasons and responsibilities for 

them on an ongoing basis—at least monthly. In an October 20, 2005, letter, 

AOC asked its construction management contractor to implement this recommendation. The construction management contractor has begun to establish 

a process for doing so and plans to have it operational by December 31. 

—We have also recommended that the project schedule show the resources to be 

applied to meet the schedule dates. While the sequence 2 contractor has shown 

proposed resource levels for many activities, it has not done so for many of the 

new activities added to the project schedule. The lack of such information can 

complicate the analysis of delays, including their causes and costs. AOC’s construction management contractor has expressed particular concern about the resources for the stone and finishing work and has requested additional resource 

information from the sequence 2 contractor for these activities. 

—We have further recommended that AOC develop plans to mitigate risks and 

uncertainties facing the project. In July 2005, AOC asked one of its consultants—MBP—to assist it in identifying risks and developing plans to address 

those risks. As of November 1, AOC had identified 55 risks facing the project 

and had begun to develop and implement plans for managing these risks. As 

of November 1, AOC said that it had developed mitigation plans in varying lev-
167 

els of detail for about 30 risks and has been discussing or plans to discuss the 

remaining risks at a weekly meeting. AOC also said that it plans to add new 

risks to its list and develop mitigation plans for other risks as appropriate. 

—In our October 18 testimony, we noted several problems associated with the 

CPP that could adversely affect the CVC, as well as other congressional buildings, if they are not corrected or addressed. For example, potential delays in 

completing the West Refrigeration Plant Expansion project and storm damage 

to electrical equipment that has precluded the use of an East Refrigeration 

Plant chiller could limit the ability of the CPP to provide enough steam and 

chilled water for the CVC’s air handlers to begin operating in March 2006, as 

shown in the October 2005 schedule. Staffing and training issues associated 

with operating the new equipment and a vacant CPP director position also pose 

management concerns. Work on the West Refrigeration Plant Expansion project 

could be delayed because AOC has directed the contractor to proceed with two 

significant contract modifications since the Subcommittee’s October 18 CVC 

hearing. Specifically, the contractor is authorized to (1) reconfigure piping so 

that the existing West Refrigeration Plant can be operated independently of the 

West Refrigeration Plant Expansion to enhance the CPP’s chilled water production capability and (2) change the design of the control system that will serve 

both the West Refrigeration Plant and new West Refrigeration Plant Expansion. 

These changes could affect the March 2006 completion date for the expansion 

project; however, AOC believes it will have sufficient chilled water capacity for 

the CVC even if the expansion project’s completion is delayed. Furthermore, 

AOC plans to restore power to the chiller in the East Plant by realigning existing equipment and is still determining why the electrical equipment (e.g., aging 

equipment, inadequate maintenance) was vulnerable to storm damage. Finally, 

the period for applying for the plant’s vacant director’s position closed on November 4. According to AOC, it received 26 applications and expects to fill the 

position in December. As part of a separate review for this Subcommittee, we 

are continuing to assess certain CPP issues, such as the staffing and training 

for, and the estimated cost to complete, the West Refrigeration Plant Expansion 

project. 

—In our October testimony, we identified problems with coordination between the 

CVC project team and AOC’s Fire Marshal Division. To address these problems, 

AOC and its construction management contractor have established a process for 

the team and the division to arrange for and document CVC inspections. 

Recommendations for Executive Action 

To help ensure that Congress receives a more reliable estimate of the project’s 

completion date in order to plan for the CVC’s opening to the public and make more 

informed decisions about AOC’s funding needs for CVC construction and operations, 

we recommend that the Architect of the Capitol (1) implement the recommendations 

(which are consistent with our prior recommendations on schedule management) 

made by its construction management contractor in its November 9 report on its 

schedule evaluation; and (2) reassess its proposal to open the CVC in mid-December 

2006 when it is confident that it has a project schedule that reflects realistic durations, enhanced logic, the resolution of concerns expressed by the Fire Marshal Division, and the impact of delays and contract changes. 

PROJECT’S ESTIMATED COST TO COMPLETE EXPECTED TO INCREASE, BUT OUR

COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT AWAITS SCHEDULE STABILIZATION

Mr. Chairman, our preliminary work shows the cost to complete the entire CVC 

project at around $542.9 million without provision for risks and uncertainties. This 

preliminary estimate falls between our September 15, 2005, interim estimate of 

$525.6 million without provision for risks and uncertainties, and our November 

2004 estimate of about $559 million with provision for risks and uncertainties. Our 

current estimate is substantially higher than MBP’s updated estimate, and it exceeds the funding provided for the project to date. As we said at the Subcommittee’s 

October 18 hearing, we are waiting for the project schedule to stabilize before we 

comprehensively update our November 2004 estimate of the cost to complete the 

project, including any costs to the government for delays. We plan to provide this 

updated estimate with and without allowances for risks and uncertainties and with 

adjustments for specific expected project completion dates. 

We would now like to discuss the basis for our estimate and why we expect the 

project’s costs to increase, why our estimate differs from MBP’s, how much funding 

is currently available for CVC construction and how much more may be needed, and 

how much the Library of Congress tunnel’s construction is likely to cost. 
168 

7We previously updated our November 2004 estimate ($515.3 million) of the cost to complete 

the project without provision for risks and uncertainties for the Subcommittee’s September 15, 

2005, CVC hearing. See Capitol Visitor Center: Schedule Delays Continue; Reassessment Underway, GAO–05–1037T (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 15, 2005). 8MBP’s estimate was based on contract modifications and proposed changes as of July 31, 

2005, except that for sequence 2, MBP included updated information from AOC on contract 

modifications executed through October 14, 2005. Also, MBP initially issued its report on October 11, but issued a revision on November 1, 2005, based on comments it had received from 

AOC. 

Estimate Is Preliminary 

Our preliminary estimate of the cost to complete the entire CVC project, which 

we will discuss today,7 is based on information provided by AOC and its construction management contractor. It reflects our review of MBP’s November 1, 2005, final 

report, which updates MBP’s October 2004 estimate and includes supporting data; 

our review of CVC contract modifications and changes proposed between August 1, 

2005, and October 31, 2005; 8 the knowledge and experience we have gained from 

monitoring this and other major construction projects; and our view that the base 

CVC project in not likely to be completed before the spring of 2007. We have discussed our preliminary estimate with AOC; however, we have not completed other 

work needed for a comprehensive update of our cost-to-complete estimate. For example, we have not updated our previous discussions of the project’s expected costs, 

risks, and uncertainties with other CVC project team members and fully assessed 

the schedule’s impact on costs, because the schedule has not been stabilized. Furthermore, we have not incorporated any costs for delays over and above the amount 

included in our November 2004 estimate. Delays have occurred since then, but as 

of October 31, 2005, CVC construction contractors had not filed any requests for adjustments or claims with AOC for delays occurring after November 2004. AOC nevertheless expects to receive additional requests for adjustments, and AOC’s construction management contractor believes that AOC may incur more costs than 

budgeted for delays. At this time, it is unclear who will bear responsibility for the 

various delays that have occurred at the CVC site, and it is therefore difficult to 

estimate their possible costs to the government. 

CVC Costs Are Likely to Increase, Largely Because of Actual and Anticipated 

Changes and Delays 

Assuming that the base project and the House and Senate expansion spaces are 

completed in the spring of 2007 and considering the qualifications just discussed, 

our preliminary estimate of the cost to complete the entire project is about $542.9 

million without provision for risks and uncertainties. This estimate is about $17.3 

million greater than our September updated estimate of $525.6 million without provision for risks and uncertainties and about $16.1 million less than our November 

2004 estimate of about $559 million with provision for risks and uncertainties. The 

$17.3 million increase is due largely to the following: 

1. Actual and anticipated changes in the project’s work scope.—Most of these 

changes were associated with sequence 2 work, but some also occurred or are expected in other project components, such as preconstruction. Significant sequence 2 

changes include the modifications to the CVC fire protection system that we discussed at the Subcommittee’s October 18 CVC hearing, changes to the building’s 

automated control system, and additional work to address gaps in the scopes of sequence 1 and sequence 2 work, such as additional waterproofing. Changes in the 

preconstruction component include moving security screening trailers and doing additional materials testing. 

2. Additional contingency funds.—We believe that AOC will need significantly 

more contingency funds for the remainder of the project for three major reasons: 

First, the actual or estimated costs for changes in sequence 2, the East Front interface, and the preconstruction project components either exceed or account for the 

majority of the funds budgeted for unanticipated work, and available information 

indicates that additional changes in these areas are likely as the project progresses. 

For example, the actual and proposed sequence 2 changes to date are more numerous and more costly (without any provision for risks and uncertainties) than we, 

AOC, and MBP anticipated in late 2004, and the actual and estimated value of the 

already identified changes greatly exceeds the budgeted contingency funding. Moreover, according to AOC’s construction management contractor, only about half the 

value of sequence 2 work is complete. Given that about half the work remains and 

changes to the project have been frequent thus far, we believe that more changes 

are likely to require funding in the future. Second, a number of issues that were 

not included in MBP’s analysis, such as the need for temporary dehumidification, 

have arisen. Proposed change orders for work to address these issues were not com-
169 

9This time extension estimate is largely based on information provided by AOC and MBP. 

10 AOC had planned to use $100,000 of its fiscal year 2006 appropriation for CVC construction 

to move a fire alarm control panel in the Capitol building to the CVC. If the control panel is 

to be moved, AOC will then decide what appropriation account will be used to pay for this move. 

If other than CVC funds are used, the $100,000 would be available for other CVC construction 

purposes subject to the approval of the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations. As 

we reported in September, AOC had also used about $805,000 in CVC operations funds for certain construction work that had been funded by the fiscal year 2006 construction appropriation. 

These funds also could be used for other CVC work subject to the Committees’ approval. AOC 

previously had about $7.8 million remaining available for CVC operations or construction, but 

about $100,000 has been rescinded. 

pleted in time for the work to be included in MBP’s report. Third, as MBP pointed 

out, the costs of many pending (proposed, but not yet approved) changes that were 

included in its report may be understated because they are based on AOC’s and its 

construction management contractor’s estimates rather than on the contractor’s 

price. According to MBP, historically, AOC’s construction management contractor 

has significantly understated the costs of pending changes. Thus, additional funds 

are likely to be needed to cover the difference between the estimated and actual 

costs of the approved changes. 

3. Delay-related project management costs.—The schedule analysis underlying our 

November 2004 cost-to-complete estimate suggested that the CVC base project 

would most likely be completed in December 2006, and our November 2004 and September 2005 cost estimates therefore included funding for AOC’s CVC staff and architectural and construction management contractors through that time. Although 

the specific expected completion date for the base project is still uncertain because 

AOC and its contractors have not yet finished their schedule reassessment, our 

work indicates that the base project is unlikely to be done before early 2007. Thus, 

our preliminary estimated cost to complete includes the estimated costs for extending AOC’s CVC staff and architectural and construction management contractors for 

the base project to March 2007.9

Our Estimate Differs from MBP’s Estimate Largely Because We Included More Items 

in the Project Scope and More Funds for Contingencies 

Our preliminary $542.9 million estimate of the cost to complete the CVC project 

is significantly higher than MBP’s November 1, 2005, $481.9 million estimate for 

several reasons. 

—Our estimate includes the costs for the CVC’s air filtration system; MBP’s does 

not. 

—MBP assumed the base project would be completed in December 2006; we considered the spring of 2007 more likely. 

—MBP did not include the costs of all CVC construction-related work, such as the 

fabrication and installation of wayfinding signs or the fit-out of the gift shops. 

Our estimate includes these costs. 

—MBP provided less contingency funding than we did for a number of project 

components (sequence 2, the House connector tunnel, the East Front interface 

with the CVC, and the House and Senate expansion spaces). We believe that 

our larger allowance is warranted, given the complexity of the work, the CVC 

project’s experience with changes, and our experience in monitoring other Capitol Hill construction projects. 

Available Funding Is Unlikely to Be Sufficient 

About $528.4 million has been provided for CVC construction, and an additional 

$7.7 million has been provided for CVC construction or operations.10 The $528.4 

million consists of the 527.9 million we discussed during the Subcommittee’s October 18 CVC hearing; and $500,000 that the Department of Defense (DOD) originally 

provided to AOC for security enhancements for the East Front of the Capitol and 

that AOC now intends, with DOD’s approval, to use for security enhancements related to the CVC’s air filtration system. 

According to AOC, it does not currently plan to use any of the $7.7 million for 

CVC construction. Thus, our preliminary $542.9 million cost-to-complete-estimate 

indicates that AOC would need about $14.5 million more to complete the project, 

assuming it is completed in March 2007. As noted, this estimate is preliminary and 

does not provide for contractor delay costs beyond the amount included in our November 2004 cost estimate. 

AOC does not believe that future changes will require as much funding as we do. 

We recognize that the total amount of funds that will be needed for contingencies, 

as well as for adjustments to contracts to offset the costs of delays, is unclear at 

this time and is subject to differing views. Nevertheless, the costs for these items 
170 

will be a major factor in determining whether AOC will need additional appropriated funds. We plan to address both issues when we do our comprehensive costto-complete update early next year. 

Estimated Construction Costs for Library of Congress Tunnel under Limit, but Could 

Increase 

Public Law 108–83 limits to $10 million the amount of federal funds that can be 

obligated or expended for the construction of the tunnel connecting the CVC with 

the Library of Congress. As of October 31, 2005, AOC estimated that the tunnel’s 

construction would cost about $8.8 million, and AOC had obligated about $4.7 million for it. The remaining estimated costs are for modifications to the Jefferson 

building to accommodate the tunnel and for contingencies. AOC expects to receive 

the bids for the Jefferson building work by November 22. Given that the work associated with the Jefferson building has not started and involves risks and uncertainties (since it will create an opening in the building’s foundation and change an existing structure), we believe that AOC could receive higher-than-expected bids and is 

likely to encounter unforeseen conditions that could increase costs significantly. 

Both we and AOC plan to monitor the tunnel’s construction closely to ensure that 

the statutory limit is not exceeded. 

WORKER SAFETY HAS IMPROVED

Worker safety will remain an important issue at the CVC site as new hazards 

arise with changes in the site’s physical structure and increases in the number of 

employees and subcontractors in the months ahead. Since we testified in May 2005 

on worker safety, AOC and its contractors have achieved improvements in key worker safety measures and actions. For example, the CVC injury and illness rate declined, from 9.1 in 2003 and 12.2 in 2004, to 5.9 for the first 10 months of 2005— 

below the 2003 industry average of 6.1. Furthermore, the CVC lost-time rate declined, from 8.1 in 2003 and 10.4 in 2004, to 4.0 for the same 10-month period— 

approaching the 2003 industry average of 3.1. The quality of the construction management contractor’s monthly CVC progress reports has also improved. Whereas the 

reports for 2003 and 2004 contained inaccurate data for key worker safety measures, as we testified in May 2005, the reports since June 2005 have contained accurate worker safety data. (In one instance, however, the draft report we received from 

the construction management contractor contained inaccurate worker safety data, 

which were corrected after we pointed them out to the construction management 

contractor.) Finally, AOC’s reporting of lost-time rates is now consistent with an updated definition issued by the Bureau of Labor Statistics in 2003. 

AOC and its contractors have taken a number of actions during 2005 to improve 

worker safety at the CVC site. For example, they have 

—held periodic safety meetings with senior managers to elevate safety issues (and 

will schedule additional meetings as needed); 

—held a project safety day to increase CVC project employees’ safety awareness; 

—provided and scheduled training on fall protection and electrical safety, for example, to elevate safety awareness and avoid accidents; 

—posted safety-related signs and banners around the CVC site to reinforce safety 

messages; and 

—added a second safety professional at the CVC project. 

In addition, since this past summer, AOC’s Central Safety Office has been involved in CVC worker safety. Specifically, the responsible official has (1) clarified 

his role on the project with the CVC Project Executive, (2) visited the CVC project 

site to obtain an understanding of general site conditions, (3) attended periodic CVC 

safety meetings and (4) reviewed safety-related data, reports, and meeting minutes. 

Drawing upon these efforts, the official has made suggestions to CVC management 

on ways to improve worker safety. 

Poor housekeeping has been an ongoing issue at the site, and the sequence 2 contractor has recently taken actions to address this issue. Piles of construction debris 

and trash, improperly stored equipment and materials, and poorly maintained employee break areas have been identified in the construction management contractor’s past safety audits. Although no injuries have been attributed to housekeeping 

issues, the construction management contractor and the sequence 2 contractor have 

recognized that these issues present an ongoing problem. To address these issues, 

the sequence 2 contractor is daily (1) cleaning up construction material debris and 

other items, (2) cleaning up the site’s three assigned eating areas, and (3) removing 

five to seven truckloads of trash. In addition, the sequence 2 contractor has placed 

more bait traps around the site to control rodents. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes our statement. We would be pleased to answer any 

questions that you or Members of the Subcommittee may have. 
171 

APPENDIX I.—CAPITOL VISITOR CENTER CRITICAL CONSTRUCTION MILESTONES—OCTOBER 19- 

NOVEMBER 17, 2005 

Activity Location 

September 

2005 scheduled finish 

date 

Actual finish 

date 

Orientation Lobby .......................................... Perimeter CMU walls .......................................... 10/13/05 ....................

Upper Level Assembly Room ........................ Topping slab ....................................................... 10/20/05 10/20/05 

East Front Subbasement .............................. Interior CMU walls .............................................. 10/27/05 ....................

Exhibit Gallery ............................................... Wall stone Area 2 base ...................................... 10/31/05 ....................

Congressional Auditorium ............................. Wall Stone Area 1 ............................................... 11/3/05 10/26/05 

Upper Level Assembly Room ........................ Wall stone area 1 layout .................................... 11/9/05 10/24/05 

Exhibit Gallery ............................................... Wall stone Area 3 base ...................................... 11/10/05 ....................

Orientation Lobby .......................................... Interior CMU walls .............................................. 11/15/05 ....................

Exhibit Gallery ............................................... Wall stone Area 1 ............................................... 11/16/05 ....................

Congressional Auditorium ............................. Wall Stone Area 2 ............................................... 11/17/05 ....................

Utility Tunnel ................................................ Excavate/shore Station Sta 0.00–1.00 ............... 10/6/05 10/24/05 

Utility Tunnel ................................................ Concrete Working Slab Sta. 0.00–1.00 .............. 10/11/05 10/26/05 

Utility Tunnel ................................................ Waterproof Working Slab Sta. 0.00–1.00 ........... 10/14/05 10/31/05 

Utility Tunnel ................................................ Install Mat Slab Sta. 0.00–1.00 ........................ 10/20/05 11/10/05 

Utility Tunnel ................................................ Install Mat Slab Sta. 1.00–2.00 ........................ 10/24/05 11/07/05 

Utility Tunnel ................................................ Install Walls Sta. 1.00–2.00 .............................. 11/4/05 ....................

Source: AOC’s September 2005 CVC sequence 2 construction schedule for the scheduled completion dates and AOC and its construction 

management contractor for the actual completion dates. 

Note: Actual completion information was obtained on November 10, 2005. 

COST TO COMPLETE

Senator ALLARD. Thank you both for your testimony this morning. I want to follow up first with a question concerning the cost 

to complete. I want to direct this to GAO and, Mr. Dorn, I believe 

you are the one to answer this. The estimate that you had last year 

was between $522 million and $559 million. Is that upper range 

going to change? 

Mr. DORN. It may change, Mr. Chairman. A number of the risks 

and uncertainties are past us at this point. But when we get the 

schedule update from AOC at the end of December and we are confident that we have a good workable schedule, we will do another 

analysis of the schedule and then we will get a completion date, 

and then we will do another analysis of the cost. 

So we will re-estimate that number. I would love to say it is 

going to stay at $559 million, but I do not know. My suspicion is 

it is going to creep higher. 

Senator ALLARD. Now I would like to have Mr. Shenkler from 

Gilbane to come up if you would, please. 

I have a few questions. One is in regard to the issue that I just 

asked the GAO and then I will have one or two questions later on. 

So I ask that you stay at the table if you would, please. 

Mr. Shenkler, do you agree with the Architect of the Capitol’s estimate of the cost to complete? 

STATEMENT OF MARVIN SHENKLER, GILBANE BUILDING COMPANY 

Mr. SHENKLER. My review of the report that was done by MBP 

indicates that it did not reflect a number of contingencies that we 

need to consider. When I looked at the numbers, I thought we 

would probably need somewhere in the neighborhood of $15 million 

to complete. 

Senator ALLARD. In addition? 

Mr. SHENKLER. In addition. 
172 

Senator ALLARD. Now, why were those not incorporated into the 

final MBP estimate? Mr. Hixon? 

Mr. HIXON. Yes, sir. When we looked, we went through the cost 

to complete and evaluated the draft report and we had the comments from Marvin, from Gilbane, there were a number of issues 

in his list that we did not feel needed to be adjusted. There is also 

the issue of the risk on Marvin’s evaluation including future risk 

that we are not aware of yet. Mr. Hantman testified in his statement that we will be reevaluating those items, including the costs 

that were not reflected by MBP that are included by Gilbane, in 

evaluation for the fiscal year 2007 budget. 

Those things relate to such issues as future delays that could 

occur not as a consequence of the delay in starting sequence number 2, but as a consequence of delays during the sequence 2 performance of the work, as well as the value of the claims or the 

delay costs that have been submitted by sequence 2 from the delay 

in commencement of their work. So there are some items that the 

numbers are bigger than we thought they would be and we will be 

evaluating both Gilbane’s comments together with GAO’s here in 

the next few weeks. 

CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE

Senator ALLARD. Okay. Now, it seems like over the period of time 

we have had these hearings there has been quite a bit of slippage 

on the schedule. How do you plan on making up lost time and at 

what cost? Do we have anything on that? 

Mr. HIXON. Is that addressed to me, sir? 

Senator ALLARD. Yes, if you would. 

Mr. HIXON. The schedule, when we originally had the schedule 

in November of last year, we were contemplating construction 

being completed on June 21. We currently are expecting construction to be done on September 15, except for a few minor items after 

that, some of which are in the east front. That essentially reflects 

a 3-month slippage on the construction schedule. 

The schedule that we currently have right now accommodates all 

of the delays that we have had to date. What we are going to end 

up with is the commissioning activities that also have to be included within the schedule will be pushing the date out from September to a future date, which could be the current schedule completion date of December 8 or some other date. 

I am expecting that the contractor at some point will submit a 

request for a time extension on a future change order to contractually add that time to his contract. At this point, he has not requested any time extensions and all change orders issued to date 

have been issued without a time extension request. So these would 

be for future, some major changes we have that have not yet been 

settled. 

SCHEDULE SLIPPAGES

Senator ALLARD. Now, this last month we had a slippage of 10 

days out of a 20-day work month. 

Mr. HIXON. That is correct. 
173 

Senator ALLARD. Last month that was attributable to the weather. That was understandable. Would you explain to me why we 

slipped 10 days this month? 

Mr. HIXON. Yes, sir. The interior stone work slippage is as a consequence of the stone deliveries that did not occur. This is a serious 

issue that we need to get resolved in order to not have an adverse 

impact on the project overall. For the utility tunnel, we had some 

rain days at the beginning of the month. We have the work that 

has got to take place with regard to Washington Gas in preparation 

for that work. Aside from that, the utility work is going very well. 

If you look at the schedule of activities, of the 16, 4 of those activities are related to the utility tunnel. Three of those are complete, one is not yet complete. Typically these are falling 1 week 

or so after the original, after the completion date that was reflected 

in the September schedule. So we are not on schedule, but we are 

very close to having this work done. 

Senator ALLARD. I understand this last week that Gilbane completed its review of the schedule durations for most critical activities, such as the utility tunnel. Mr. Shenkler, can you brief us on 

that review and Gilbane’s recommendations? 

Mr. SHENKLER. Our review of the schedule has been the same as 

it was last month in terms of stone. We are losing time because we 

cannot get adequate stone to install. You have got a comparable 

issue. If we get stone, we do not have the masons; if we have the 

masons, we do not have the stone. Until we can resolve this issue 

on stone deliveries, we cannot tell you when we are going to land 

with completion of this job. 

STONE INJUNCTION

Right now, the injunction is prohibiting Manhattan from exercising their normal contractor rights to go and seek other sources 

to supplement their forces, and until that injunction is removed 

and they are released to do what they would normally do we are 

looking at day for day delay. Even when, if they are released, there 

is no assurances that we have got or they have another fabricator 

on hand because they have not been able to talk to anybody else 

until that injunction is released to see whether there is capacity 

out there in the marketplace to fabricate the stone required. 

Senator ALLARD. If I understand where we are with the court, if 

we can make a strong case that stone delivery is affecting our completion date then there is a possibility the court would give us some 

relief in that regard. My understanding now is that you are moving 

forward with the court, saying that our completion date will be affected. Do you want to speculate on where we might be with the 

court? 

Mr. SHENKLER. Speculating on what the judiciary does is questionable at best. But even if they were to give us relief on December 1, I think it is going to take at least 2 months for Manhattan 

to locate a fabricator and get stone back on the job from a new fabricator. We are probably looking at maybe 3 months before we actually see some positive impact as a result of a second fabricator. 

That, in conjunction with what the impact will be from Quarra, 

who may very well decide to slow down their slow production already, just may exacerbate the problem even more. While we may 
174 

be getting more stone or some stone from a second fabricator, we 

may wind up getting less stone from Quarra because they are unwilling to produce like they were supposed to. 

Senator ALLARD. Do they not have some contract obligations 

there? 

Mr. SHENKLER. Yes. They have not lived up to them yet. 

Senator ALLARD. What is our recourse? 

Mr. SHENKLER. There is none because until we can get relief we 

cannot go look for a second fabricator, and the only thing we have 

available to us is to wait and get the stone and then find out what 

the cost to the Government is as a result of these delays and seek 

relief from the contractor. 

Senator ALLARD. Now, Mr. Hantman, do you see this affecting 

our December opening date? 

Mr. HANTMAN. Well, Mr. Chairman, in the sequence of construction certainly the stone work needs to be finished before other activities can take place. In some instances, we will be able to start 

ceiling work without some of the stone work being done. In some 

instances we may be able to start some floor work areas. But the 

critical issue of installing and finishing off the other finishes really 

is contingent upon the stone deliveries and installation. 

So our reality is if we do not get the relief and find the capacity 

that can really increase the volume of stone that has been delivered and installed, the December date certainly could be in jeopardy. 

SECOND STONE SUPPLIER

Senator ALLARD. Is there any reason for us to start looking now 

for a second masonry supply? What would keep us from starting 

to look now, because it looks to me like there is a potential problem 

here and we are going to have to deal with it. If we have recognized it, if we could get a jump ahead instead of waiting for the 

final court decision, maybe we could at least get our ducks lined 

up, and if the court decision goes against us then there is not much 

we can do about it. But if they say okay, you can go ahead and get 

a second contractor, at least we can have somebody lined up. 

Mr. HANTMAN. Mr. Chairman, we would love to do exactly what 

you are talking about. The issue is that Boatman and Magnani is 

the one who has the contracts with both the quarry and the fabricator and they are the ones that have the injunction that says basically you have to use this quarry and this fabricator, and that is 

what we are seeking relief from so that we can find alternatives. 

So in reality, Manhattan and Boatman are not able to go out and 

look for alternative sources, as per the court injunction at this 

point in time. 

Senator ALLARD. I see. 

Mr. UNGAR. Mr. Chairman. 

Senator ALLARD. Yes, Mr. Ungar. 

Mr. UNGAR. We might want to add a thought here. It is our understanding that the Government is not itself bound by the court’s 

order, and there is another option, although it may not be very attractive to the Government for a number of reasons. That is, the 

Government itself could take action to acquire the stone. But there 

are some financial and contractual issues associated with that. We 
175 

are not recommending that. We are just bringing it to your attention. 

Senator ALLARD. Mr. Hantman. 

Mr. HANTMAN. There are also legal aspects to that. We may be 

brought into the case and have the original quarry and fabricator 

sue us for interfering with the contracts that they have with Boatman and Magnani. I am not an attorney. I—— 

Senator ALLARD. There is a liability with that approach—— 

Mr. HANTMAN. Yes, and there may be additional costs, which if 

we direct the contractors to do something we would be accruing as 

our responsibility. We do not have any concept of what those costs 

or schedule implications would be. 

Senator ALLARD. It is really frustrating for me to have a nonperformer on the contract and we are tied up legally here. That is a 

frustrating situation we find ourselves in. 

Mr. HANTMAN. Terribly frustrating. And that is exactly why we 

have taken the action. Now, with the December 1 court date, hopefully we will get, or actually Boatman and Magnani and Manhattan will get some relief and they will be able to go out and start 

solving the problems. Then, as Marvin has indicated, we need to 

take a look at the schedule if in fact a second contractor is found. 

There are contractors who are doing work on other aspects of the 

building separate and distinct from this that might be involved in 

this, but we cannot commit or explore that because of the injunction at this point. 

Senator ALLARD. I see. 

Mr. Ungar. 

Mr. UNGAR. Mr. Chairman, just one more point, I think, along 

the lines that Mr. Shenkler was speaking about. I think as AOC 

proceeds and hopefully the stone issue does get resolved one way 

or the other, we still strongly believe that the durations in the 

schedule for the stone work and certain other work need to be reevaluated, given the previous findings that we have had there. 

That is why, as Mr. Dorn mentioned, we are recommending that 

AOC implement the Gilbane recommendations, because some of 

those are aimed at getting a better handle on the durations in the 

schedule. Even if you had the stone, how long is it really going to 

take to get it up based on the productivity rates and the experience 

of the project to date? 

Senator ALLARD. Sure. 

STONEMASONS

I was going to direct this next question to Mr. Dorn. Mr. 

Hantman said that to keep our stonemasons employed we have 

gone to some tasks of a lesser priority. I assume that is the theater 

area. Do you see us having enough work to keep the stonemasons 

going in light of some of the possible complications we have here 

from the court? 

Mr. DORN. I have asked for some detailed numbers from Gilbane 

and they were able to provide them as I was riding in the van on 

the way here, so I have not been able to do more detailed calculations. But the back of the envelope numbers would indicate that if 

the stone deliveries do not increase, that somewhere in the February to April timeframe we may be almost out of stone. 
176 

You literally will not run completely out because each piece of 

stone is not the same. Some pieces are critical, which hold up other 

pieces. But particularly since Manhattan has talked about increasing the productivity from 6 pieces per mason per day up to 11 or 

12 pieces per day, you are just going to run out of—you are barely 

getting by now. If they increase their productivity, it is going to be 

even worse. 

Senator ALLARD. It seems to me like we are at a very critical 

point here. 

Mr. DORN. We are, and I agree with Mr. Hantman that the stone 

deliveries are a critical step going forward. 

FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEM

Senator ALLARD. Let me move over to the fire protection system. 

Does the master schedule now fully reflect the fire marshal’s requirements for testing, balancing, and commissioning the fire protection system? 

Mr. HIXON. No, sir, they do not reflect all those yet. We had committed to get the testing and balancing done before this hearing 

and to have the fire marshal’s, the life safety acceptance testing, 

done by the December period, and we are well on the way to start 

that process. We have already had a meeting with the fire marshal 

to review that. They have gone through the fire alarm shop drawings. So we expect that we would have those elements, those activities, included in the schedule here in the next month. 

SECURITY EQUIPMENT INSTALLATION

Senator ALLARD. On security equipment installation, we understand that a delay has occurred in arranging for the installation of 

security cabling and equipment in the CVC. Could you explain 

what the problem is there and whether it is being resolved or not 

and who is responsible for resolving the problem and how much additional cost we may be looking at there? 

Mr. HIXON. Mr. Chairman, we have been endeavoring to secure 

funds that we have previously transferred from the project to the 

Capitol Police, to use those to fund the purchase of cable and 

equipment. The arrangement that we originally had was the Capitol Police would do that themselves. Then since we have the conduit installed, we thought it would help facilitate things if we had 

our contractor perform that work. 

There have been discussions recently about the transfer of funding from the Capitol Police back to the AOC in order for us to use 

those funds to perform that work as part of our contract. We had 

some issues with the memorandum of understanding. Those have 

essentially been resolved, but we have a new issue that the General Accounting—the Government Accountability Office has 

brought up, concerning using direct cites versus the transfer of 

funds. So we have been in discussions about that over the past few 

days and as recently as this morning, we understand that the Capitol Police may elect to go ahead and contract for this work directly 

themselves. 

So the issue is being worked. It just has not reached a conclusion. As far as the impact to the costs associated with that, we are 

uncertain at this time what that would be. The cabling takes about 
177 

6 weeks to get here from when it is ordered and 6 weeks from now 

we should have some ceiling work going in. Depending on where 

that work occurs and when the cabling shows up, there may be 

some impacts to the price that was previously submitted for this 

work in order to install it around the existing construction at that 

time. 

Senator ALLARD. So the Capitol Police then want to do it themselves? Did they give us a reason? 

Mr. HIXON. The issue relates to control of the funds, control of 

the work. That was how our MOU became difficult between us, is 

who was actually controlling the contracts. We have resolved the 

wording on that. We would be happy to do the work for them if we 

could work out the funding. So we were prepared to pursue having 

the funds transferred back, which requires committee approval. 

Senator ALLARD. I see. 

Mr. HIXON. But if not, if they choose not to do that, they could 

contract directly with the contractor’s personnel, the electrical subcontractor who is performing that work. We would be happy to facilitate that if that is what they choose to do. 

Senator ALLARD. So now who is responsible for the final resolution of this? 

Mr. HIXON. At this moment we need to complete a conversation 

with the Capitol Police to determine if they want to use our contractor to do this work, which I would expect them to do, or if they 

want to pursue a transfer of funds, which they would need to initiate. 

Senator ALLARD. I see, okay. Do you think there is a chance we 

could get this resolved by the end of the week? 

Mr. HIXON. We expect to resolve it, yes, sir, very quickly. 

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

Senator ALLARD. Can you give us an update, Mr. Hantman, on 

the process of hiring the executive director for the CVC? 

Mr. HANTMAN. As you know, Mr. Chairman, Korn Ferry has been 

retained by Zell Partners, who are our consultants on this. Working through Zell Partners, they have identified a number of strong 

potential candidates. They want to make sure that they have a listing of enough candidates to come forward, perhaps five to six candidates. They already have several strong people that they have in 

mind. 

I think part of the issue also is the decision on who does the 

interviewing and when those people can get together to do the 

interviewing. There have been discussions about doing it by the 

end of the month. I am not sure that those dates are going to hold, 

so it is really kind of out of our hands in terms of when interviews 

would be held. But I think Korn Ferry has progressed to the point 

where they have a list of candidates to be interviewed. 

Senator ALLARD. Thank you. 

FISCAL YEAR 2007 BUDGET SUBMISSION

Now, when we start off our next session we will be getting right 

into the budget time, and I assume that you are working on your 

2007 budget. We have got some unknown factors here. How are you 

factoring those into your 2007 budget? 
178 

Mr. HANTMAN. As Mr. Hixon indicated a while ago, there are 

some strong concerns certainly voiced by Mr. Shenkler and 

Gilbane, and that is what we hired them for, to look at those concerns and advise us on what they think is appropriate. There are 

certainly many issues that GAO has developed and questions they 

have about the McDonough Bolyard Peck cost to complete. 

So what we would want to do is sit down and find out in detail 

the concerns and the source of the concerns that GAO has and 

what the recommendations are from the Gilbane side, and if we 

need to address those in the fiscal year 2007 budget we will certainly do so. 

Senator ALLARD. Do you think you will be ready with your 2007 

budget? 

Mr. HANTMAN. I guess the timing is the issue on that. We need 

to get together very soon and take a look at just what those concerns are on both sides. There is no doubt that our submission for 

the 2007 budget needs to include any potential funds for this. 

Senator ALLARD. Well, I hope we can get started because my intention is to get started fairly early next year on the budget. I do 

not know what our Appropriations chairman is thinking of, but my 

thought is that we get going as quickly as possible next year. 

SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

I think we have covered everything, and I want to thank you all 

for testifying again here today. We are out of session now December and January. I do not anticipate a need for a hearing. We will 

have another hearing in February. 

Thank you very much. 

[Whereupon, at 11:45 a.m., Wednesday, November 16, the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of the 

Chair.] 
(i) 

LIST OF WITNESSES, COMMUNICATIONS, AND 

PREPARED STATEMENTS 

Page 

Allard, Senator Wayne, U.S. Senator From Colorado, Opening Statements 

of.............................................................................................. 1, 35, 63, 89, 123, 151 

Dorn, Terrell, Assistant Director, Physical Infrastructure, Government Accountability Office.................................................................. 9, 39, 63, 96, 129, 159 

Hantman, Alan M., FAIA, Architect of the Capitol................ 1, 35, 75, 90, 124, 152 

Opening Statements of ............................................................................... 2, 36, 91 

Prepared Statements of ..................................................... 4, 38, 78, 93, 127, 157 

Hixon, Bob, Project Director, Capitol Visitor Center, Architect of the Capitol ........................................................................................... 1, 35, 75, 90, 124, 152 

Shenkler, Marvin, Gilbane Building Company................................................. 144, 171 

Ungar, Bernard L., Director, Physical Infrastructure, Government Accountability Office................................................................................ 39, 63, 96, 129, 159 

Prepared Statements of .......................................................... 41, 66, 98, 130, 161 

Walker, David M., Comptroller General of the United States, Government 

Accountability Office ............................................................................................ 9 

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 10 

(iii) 

SUBJECT INDEX 

Page 

Acceleration: 

Costs .................................................................................................................. 85 

Work .................................................................................................................. 81 

Actions Needed ........................................................................................................ 66 

Additional: 

Fiscal Year 2005 Funding ................................................................................ 60 

Utility Work ...................................................................................................... 50 

Administrative Items ............................................................................................... 77 

Architect of the Capitol, RTKL ‘‘Doing it Right’’ at the U.S. Capitol Visitor 

Center .................................................................................................................... 155 

Assessment of: 

Gilbane’s Performance ..................................................................................... 145 

Task Durations ................................................................................................. 85 

Base Schedule .......................................................................................................... 138 

Bronze Doors ............................................................................................................ 143 

Capitol Power Plant ................................................................................................ 118 

Director .............................................................................................................. 146 

Fire .................................................................................................................... 147 

Capitol Visitor Center: 

Executive Director ............................................................................................ 125 

Opening Schedule ............................................................................................. 110 

Completion: 

And Occupancy ................................................................................................. 21 

Date................................................................................................................... 15, 47 

Schedule ............................................................................................................ 38 

Construction: 

Contract Management ...................................................................................... 17 

Delay Documentation ....................................................................................... 144 

Issues ................................................................................................................. 159 

Manager ............................................................................................................ 32 

Progress ............................................................................................................. 55 

Project Status .................................................................................................... 153 

Quality ............................................................................................................... 122 

Schedule............................................................................................... 137, 160, 172 

Assessment ................................................................................................ 138 

Status ................................................................................................................ 126 

To Operations Integration ............................................................................... 87 

Update ............................................................................................................... 127 

Contractor: 

Change Orders .................................................................................................. 17 

Penalties and Incentives .................................................................................. 31 

Safety Records .................................................................................................. 26 

Variances ........................................................................................................... 32 

Coordination With WASA ....................................................................................... 49 

Cost: 

Implications ....................................................................................................... 22 

Overruns ............................................................................................................ 27 

To Complete......................................................... 29, 79, 142, 153, 157, 160, 171 

Executive Director................................................................................................. 87, 177 

Exhibits and Operations ......................................................................................... 158 

Expansion Space ...................................................................................................... 20 

Work .................................................................................................................. 58 

Exterior Construction Progress.............................................................................. 37, 76 

Fire: 

Alarm System ................................................................................................... 57 
Page

iv 

Fire—Continued 

Marshal ............................................................................................................. 80 

Protection System ............................................................................................. 176 

Systems Commissioning ................................................................................... 113 

Fiscal Year: 

2006 Budget Request ....................................................................................... 23, 61 

2007 Budget Submission .................................................................................. 177 

Food Service Contract ............................................................................................. 125 

GAO’s Opinion on Assessment ............................................................................... 86 

Increased Insurance Costs ...................................................................................... 26 

Integrated Schedule .............................................................................................. 18, 120 

Interior: 

Construction Progress...................................................................................... 36, 76 

Stone Construction ........................................................................................... 116 

Key Management Issues ......................................................................................... 124 

Legal Issues Involving Stone Contractor ............................................................... 82 

Life Safety Egress .................................................................................................... 58 

Major Milestones ..................................................................................................... 33 

Management Initiatives .......................................................................................... 128 

Manhattan’s Progress .............................................................................................. 54 

Master Schedule ...................................................................................................... 51 

Milestone Completion.............................................................................................. 46, 83 

Mitigation Plan ........................................................................................................ 147 

November Hearing Preparation ............................................................................. 122 

Occupancy: 

Certification ...................................................................................................... 56 

Permits .............................................................................................................. 56 

Opening Date ........................................................................................................... 140 

Operations: 

Criteria .............................................................................................................. 138 

Initiatives .......................................................................................................... 128 

Overall Status .......................................................................................................... 161 

Potential: 

Cost Increases ................................................................................................... 79 

Risk .................................................................................................................... 19 

Project: 

Cost .................................................................................................................... 41 

Costs Continue to Increase .............................................................................. 65 

Highlights ..................................................................................................... 154, 157 

Schedule ............................................................................................................ 157 

Scope Changes .................................................................................................. 28 

Project’s Estimated Cost to Complete Expected to Increase, but Our Comprehensive Assessment Awaits Schedule Stabilization .................................... 167 

Risk Mitigation: 

Factors ............................................................................................................... 60 

Plan .................................................................................................................... 58 

Safety: 

Issues ................................................................................................................. 51 

Records.............................................................................................................. 25, 54 

Standards .......................................................................................................... 52 

Schedule: 

Delays ................................................................................................................ 47 

Duration Reassessment .................................................................................... 48 

Makeup .............................................................................................................. 141 

Management ..................................................................................................... 39 

Progress and Problems ..................................................................................... 64 

Risks Assessment ............................................................................................. 48 

Slippages ........................................................................................................... 172 

Update ............................................................................................................... 128 

Second Stone Supplier ............................................................................................. 174 

Security: 

Concerns ............................................................................................................ 30 

Equipment Installation .................................................................................... 176 

Sequence 2 Change Orders ..................................................................................... 16 

Status of Operations ................................................................................................ 155 

Stone: 

Delivery Status ................................................................................................. 152 

Injunction .......................................................................................................... 173 
Page

v 

Stone—Continued 

Installation Delays ........................................................................................... 84 

Stonemasons ........................................................................................................ 140, 175 

System Commissioning ........................................................................................... 56 

Transition to Operations ......................................................................................... 86 

Tunnel Utilities ........................................................................................................ 48 

Unforeseen Conditions ............................................................................................ 141 

Upcoming Milestones .............................................................................................. 148 

Utility: 

Connections ....................................................................................................... 50 

Costs .................................................................................................................. 49 

Tunnel ............................................................................................................... 140 

Progress ...................................................................................................... 77 

Verification of CVC Risk Assessment Award Date ............................................... 109 

West Refrigeration Plant Cost to Complete .......................................................... 146 

Work and Revisions to the Project Schedule Continue, but Delays Hamper 

Progress ................................................................................................................ 163 

Worker: 

Safety ................................................................................................................. 24 

Has Improved ............................................................................................ 170 

Statistics .................................................................................................... 161 

Æ